# At Least 4 Months For Conversion Documents



## Mouseferatu (Mar 17, 2015)

Argle.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Mar 17, 2015)

Ugh.

Oh well... Game on!


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 17, 2015)

Is there a conversion for 5th into 2nd?


----------



## SteeleC (Mar 17, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> Is there a conversion for 5th into 2nd?




Yeah - play 2nd?

Normally a conversion is so you can take existing content and port it to the latest editions rule set.  If you're trying to convert to 2nd edition, just use that ruleset and that content.  What would you need to convert from 5e?


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 17, 2015)

SteeleC said:


> Yeah - play 2nd?
> 
> Normally a conversion is so you can take existing content and port it to the latest editions rule set.  If you're trying to convert to 2nd edition, just use that ruleset and that content.  What would you need to convert from 5e?




Is this a serious question?  Sorry, but conversions "normally" work either way.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Mar 17, 2015)

4 months? That's a hell of a trial.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2015)

I imagine this might also delay the OGL and other stuff that needs managerial approval.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Those waiting for official conversion documents from earlier editions of D&D to 5th edition are going to have to wait a bit longer. WotC's Mike Mearls says that "the person who needs to do the final approvals on them is serving on a jury that will take another 4 or so months. Sorry!"





It's two weeks early for April Fools Day.


----------



## thexar (Mar 17, 2015)

The person in question should have worn wizard robes to jury selection.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 17, 2015)

The whole "tiny staff to manage biggest RPG brand" thing clearly has it limits.


----------



## Belisarius76 (Mar 17, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> Is this a serious question?  Sorry, but conversions "normally" work either way.




exactly right, 2e already has every single monster etc catalogued, whereas 5e through the Monster Manual has select monsters atm, I presume they will add another book to the range in time with more catalogued.
There is no need to convert 5e to 2e, you merely use the 2e rule system and the new storyline, no brainer. Let's hope he wasn't trolling for edition wars arguments.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2015)

Grrr...


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 17, 2015)

Belisarius76 said:


> exactly right, 2e already has every single monster etc catalogued, whereas 5e through the Monster Manual has select monsters atm, I presume they will add another book to the range in time with more catalogued.
> There is no need to convert 5e to 2e, you merely use the 2e rule system and the new storyline, no brainer. Let's hope he wasn't trolling for edition wars arguments.




I'd let him speak for himself.  I read your comment as negative, though.  I would only reply to learn if you meant to be rude or insulting.  There are plenty of things I would use a conversion from 5e to 2e for.


----------



## SteeleC (Mar 17, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> I'd let him speak for himself.  I read your comment as negative, though.  I would only reply to learn if you meant to be rude or insulting.  There are plenty of things I would use a conversion from 5e to 2e for.




I did not intend to be rude or insulting.  The question remains - what would you need to convert from 5e to 2e?

And to answer the original question, no - there are no official conversion guidelines from 5e to 2e.  I don't expect there ever will be short of reversing the 2e to 5e guidelines if/when they come out.


----------



## Belisarius76 (Mar 17, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> I'd let him speak for himself.  I read your comment as negative, though.  I would only reply to learn if you meant to be rude or insulting.  There are plenty of things I would use a conversion from 5e to 2e for.




It's replied to the wrong person from the article thread, but anyway. You take it how you wish mate, if you want that comment to be negative, you go for it, your pretty "precious" if you do, no wonder we have free speech under attack across the West, with so many whingers and whiners. {not editing, get over it - free speech, was nothing short of pathetic to try and start something out of nothing by SirAntione}

Getting back to it, why would you want to convert 5e back to 2e anyway baseline? And secondly as I said above, you already have every single 2e book published quite clearly available. So for example if you purchased the 5e Starter Set, and ran "Lost Mine of Phandelver", they have all the monsters/NPCs in the back mostly, but if some are missing, they are covered in the 5e Monster Manual (which is limited in scope compared to previous Monster Manuals). So it is an absolutely easy as {edit} to open up a 2e core book monster manual and just use those stats instead? Why would you need to reverse convert? It doesn't make sense. It's nothing to do with negativity {edit}.


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 17, 2015)

This isn't wizards.com, but conversion rules for bringing content from later editions into previous editions should be something 5th Edition and every edition to come have.  I could hardly pick a more vital part I want to see.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2015)

I'm on a phone right now, getting pinged with reported posts while trying to watch Better Call Saul, so my ability to deal with this properly is limited; but those of you who have called others trolls, whiners, whingers, or evaded the profanity filter with asterisks, do not post again in this thread. Those of the rest of you who feel S.A.'s question is invalid in some way, think of some non-obnoxious way to discuss it politely with him.


----------



## Wallraven (Mar 17, 2015)

(Nothing to see here, move along... while I look for the "delete" button...)


----------



## Henrix (Mar 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I imagine this might also delay the OGL and other stuff that needs managerial approval.



My first thought as well.


----------



## SteeleC (Mar 17, 2015)

Morrus - I apologize for using the T word.  

SirAntoine - In order to understand your question, it would help if you provided an example of what you'd like to back convert to 2e.  I wouldn't expect WotC to create a conversion document in that direction, but there are many here that could help in back converting elements from the 5e to 2e if we knew what you were looking for.  As has been pointed out, it doesn't make sense to do it with monsters since 5e is a subset of 2e in that regard already.  If there are elements of the rules (advantage/disadvantage for example) that you like, many of those rules can be directly applied to 2e without conversion.  Story elements and pantheons don't require conversions.  Hopefully you can see where our confusion lies with the original question - but if you can clarify, we may be able to help.


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll (Mar 17, 2015)

Casts *detect evil*
Boom. Jury duty done.
What's that? What do you mean, "it's not a real spell"?
Casts *protection from reality* 
La la la la
Casts *mage straitjacket*


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 17, 2015)

By the time they arrive, they'll be irrelevant.  Sad, but true.  In fact, I doubt many people still have games on hold waiting for the conversion package... most people have probably already converted themselves.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 17, 2015)

Weren't these supposed to be out late last year?


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 17, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> 4 months? That's a hell of a trial.




There are three different capital murder cases going on in King County right now. I'm assuming it must be one of those.


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 17, 2015)

Belisarius76 said:


> It's replied to the wrong person from the article thread, but anyway. You take it how you wish mate, if you want that comment to be negative, you go for it, your pretty "precious" if you do, no wonder we have free speech under attack across the West, with so many whingers and whiners.
> 
> Getting back to it, why would you want to convert 5e back to 2e anyway baseline? And secondly as I said above, you already have every single 2e book published quite clearly available. So for example if you purchased the 5e Starter Set, and ran "Lost Mine of Phandelver", they have all the monsters/NPCs in the back mostly, but if some are missing, they are covered in the 5e Monster Manual (which is limited in scope compared to previous Monster Manuals). So it is an absolute piece of p**s to open up a 2e core book monster manual and just use those stats instead? Why would you need to reverse convert? It doesn't make sense. It's nothing to do with negativity or being a smarta**e.




But there are new things in 5th Edition.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 17, 2015)

So I guess they are just sitting around the office looking at all the empty cubicles playing solitaire and working on their home campaigns until the boss comes back.


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 17, 2015)

SteeleC said:


> I did not intend to be rude or insulting. The question remains - what would you need to convert from 5e to 2e?
> 
> And to answer the original question, no - there are no official conversion guidelines from 5e to 2e. I don't expect there ever will be short of reversing the 2e to 5e guidelines if/when they come out.




5e has new content.  Any of it that you want to incorporate into your campaign could be helped by conversion guidelines.  From 3rd and 4th Edition, there were eight monster manuals, and 4th edition in particular introduced new monsters including dizzying mechanics and jargon.  Just the other day, I took a few undead from 4e and wrote new stats for them in 2nd Edition.


----------



## Belisarius76 (Mar 17, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> But there are new things in 5th Edition.




Ok so what you are talking about is feats etc? Because really, apart from that and the overhaul on saving throws across the board, class abilities, you could just negate all that and fully adopt simple 2e rules mate? Just substitute spells as required, it would more or less balance itself out because you're adopting 2e in every way as opposed to 5e.

{edit} btw, did you report my post? I backtracked on this thread and seen a moderator. If so that's pathetic mate, and I personally will not be supporting this forum or this site anymore if people are that petty around here, when it was clearly yourself that took my post as "Negative" originally when clearly it wasn't. I was merely stating an opinion. Absolutely PATHETIC, taddle tale, what are you 5 years old mate?

Goodbye.

*Mod Note: * EN World's policy has seen us through a whole lot of interpersonal conflicts and Edition Wars for over a decade.  It demonstrably works.  We fail to see how using a system that works and keeps conversations on a mostly even keel can be seen as immature.  ~Umbran


----------



## graves3141 (Mar 17, 2015)

Perhaps this is the "big reveal"?  

Seriously though, saying "final approval" suggests that the work is already done (or mostly done) and that the only remaining obstacle is one guy who happens to be unavailable. 

Perhaps someone else could give the final approval?  Perhaps Mearls will also eventually announce what they've been working on or what they plan to work on next.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2015)

This is annoying, but if it's just the conversion document, it's no big deal. The number of people affected are minor. 

But "jury duty" was also given for delays earlier, so this is a problem that has been going on many months. Rather annoying that we only found out now via a tweet. I certainly feel well out of the loop. Again, NBD unless it's also affecting the OGL or a potential update of the DM Basic rules.



TerraDave said:


> The whole "tiny staff to manage biggest RPG brand" thing clearly has it limits.



Since Mearls said "approve" not write, it's probably someone in a managerial or legal role and not really part of the (small) D&D team.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Since Mearls said "approve" not write, it's probably someone in a managerial or legal role and not really part of the (small) D&D team.





If it were someone who only needed authority and not actual D&D knowledge, I would think they could pass it over or up to someone else to get it done.  This is the edition that was supposed to bring everyone back home.  So, one would think that having a conversion doc in place was a priority at some stage.  On the other hand, since the concern has been on the back burner this long already, I'm guessing it holds little importance to WotC to get it done.  Either having it in a timely manner simply has never been a priority or it runs counter to other priorities.


----------



## graves3141 (Mar 17, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> On the other hand, since the concern has been on the back burner this long already, I'm guessing it holds little importance to WotC to get it done.  Either having it in a timely manner simply has never been a priority or it runs counter to other priorities.




An official conversion document from WotC would be very cool to have.  I just hope it eventually comes out at some point and doesn't get completely forgotten.

I still have a paper copy of the 3E conversion pamphlet.  I remember they were giving them out for free at a bookstore I visited in a Lubbock shopping mall back in 2000.


----------



## Wallraven (Mar 18, 2015)

jgsugden said:


> By the time they arrive, they'll be irrelevant.  Sad, but true.  In fact, I doubt many people still have games on hold waiting for the conversion package... most people have probably already converted themselves.




I'd like to try 5e without having to pay for anything first (ie, using the Basic rules). I have a pile of adventures for previous editions, but none for 5th.
And I'm currently in the middle of a campaign, so there's no great rush - I'd rather wait for the official guidelines than try and do it myself.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## GlobeOfDankness (Mar 18, 2015)

wouldn't it be easier to just pass the work onto someone who doesn't have jury duty? this seems more like PR lies to me than anything.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2015)

This is what he said in January: "Yes, warforged will be up first - jury duty has messed with our plans, but stuff is moving along." It was supposed to explain why the Warforged was late. It still got released. http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2272-Warforged-Coming-to-D-D-Soon!#.VMI6ES686YQ

So odd.


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> If it were someone who only needed authority and not actual D&D knowledge, I would think they could pass it over or up to someone else to get it done.  This is the edition that was supposed to bring everyone back home.  So, one would think that having a conversion doc in place was a priority at some stage.  On the other hand, since the concern has been on the back burner this long already, I'm guessing it holds little importance to WotC to get it done.  Either having it in a timely manner simply has never been a priority or it runs counter to other priorities.




Yeah there's no way that the approval of this document is being held up by one person. It's just on the backburner.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 18, 2015)

GlobeOfDankness said:


> wouldn't it be easier to just pass the work onto someone who doesn't have jury duty? this seems more like PR lies to me than anything.




Right, I understand that jury can be time consuming but it's not like you're not allowed contact with the outside world or locked in a jury room until a decision is made.  You still get to go home and eat, there are times when you don't need to be at the trial that you can work.  I mean what, it'll take maybe a couple days for this guy to approve?  

I mean is their ENTIRE BUSINESS being held up by this guy being on jury duty?  Might as well close the doors and send everyone home for 4 months then if you everything is going to get clogged at the bottleneck of this guy being out of the office.


----------



## GlobeOfDankness (Mar 18, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Right, I understand that jury can be time consuming but it's not like you're not allowed contact with the outside world or locked in a jury room until a decision is made.  You still get to go home and eat, there are times when you don't need to be at the trial that you can work.  I mean what, it'll take maybe a couple days for this guy to approve?
> 
> I mean is their ENTIRE BUSINESS being held up by this guy being on jury duty?  Might as well close the doors and send everyone home for 4 months then if you everything is going to get clogged at the bottleneck of this guy being out of the office.




it's almost like it doesn't make any logical sense (like a lie).


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

GlobeOfDankness said:


> it's almost like it doesn't make any logical sense (like a lie).





I don't think we should jump to that conclusion.  However, the number of alternative explanations can't be many.  Certainly no one at WotC would think their customers would just nod their heads and not think this situation isn't ridiculous.  It's like the confidence a youngster has when first telling a teacher the dog ate his homework, when the dog actually ate the homework.  The teacher, thinks the student, has to believe me because it is true.  Now, if student tells a teacher the dog is going to eat the homework for the next four months, that takes the confidence of someone raising their dog to eat homework.


----------



## thalmin (Mar 18, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Right, I understand that jury can be time consuming but it's not like you're not allowed contact with the outside world or locked in a jury room until a decision is made.  You still get to go home and eat, there are times when you don't need to be at the trial that you can work.  I mean what, it'll take maybe a couple days for this guy to approve?
> 
> I mean is their ENTIRE BUSINESS being held up by this guy being on jury duty?  Might as well close the doors and send everyone home for 4 months then if you everything is going to get clogged at the bottleneck of this guy being out of the office.



You are assuming the jury person has nothing better to do when not at the courthouse than approve the conversion docs. We don't know what other responsibilites (s)he has that might be more important, like possibly the next (unanounced) 5E book, or maybe a family. It's much easier to believe it is all a conspiracy.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

thalmin said:


> It's much easier to believe it is all a conspiracy.





Naw, that's looking for zebras when you hear hooves in Texas.  Never suspect a conspiracy has brought you to a place when a combination of an incompetent guide, bad directions, and a lousy map can lead to the same destination.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 18, 2015)

How disappointing.

The conversion documents are the ideal solution for those who are not satisfied with 5E's comparatively very slow release schedule.


----------



## Grimjack99 (Mar 18, 2015)

While I'd wish more products and site material was coming out, its not.  It is what is is.  I'm not happy, but I don't work at WotC, and I don't know the limitations they're under.  Until then, we can keep ourselves warm with wishes and speculation.  OH, and awesome gaming too.

Hmmmm, Planescape, Hmmmmm, Spelljammer...


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

thalmin said:


> You are assuming the jury person has nothing better to do when not at the courthouse than approve the conversion docs. We don't know what other responsibilites (s)he has that might be more important, like possibly the next (unanounced) 5E book, or maybe a family. It's much easier to believe it is all a conspiracy.




This. Thanks Thalmin for being a voice of reason. As soon as I saw the news item, I grimaced. Not because of the delay, although I am bummed over that. Because I knew this thread would be filled with negativity, armchair quarterbacking, and cries of "liars!"

The four month wait is most certainly a bummer, but life happens folks. I would FULLY expect that a series of FREE conversion guides would be a low priority and get bumped if they are temporarily down a team member. There are much more important things the D&D team is working on, I am sure.

WotC does have a small team for D&D, but they are not liars, not incompetent, and don't owe us any explanations other than what Mearls has told us. I will never understand the negative folks who just can't take WotC staff at their word, especially on eminently reasonable stuff like this.

Then again, it's threads like these that allow me to fill out my ignore list, so there's that.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 18, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> This is annoying, but if it's just the conversion document, it's no big deal. The number of people affected are minor.




Maybe...but it especially sucks when one is being told to convert stuff from DnD classics as a solution to not a lot of product coming out...


----------



## thalmin (Mar 18, 2015)

I agree that I would like to see the conversion documents last month. I would also like to see Wizards publish monthly short modules. Possibly in addition to printing updated classic modules. But I can only hope.
I do know that WotC is working on something beyond PotA, though I don't know what it is. Maybe there will be an announcement at GAMA this week (IhopeIhopeIhope!)


----------



## JohnnyZemo (Mar 18, 2015)

It's funny how often you have an article about something around the same time that I was thinking about it!

I'm getting ready to run the Night Below campaign and part of Age of Worms using 5e, so I'd love to have the conversion guides.  A lot of the Night Below creatures are in the 5e Monster Manual, so those are easy.  Some of the other stuff will take a little more effort.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 18, 2015)

thalmin said:


> You are assuming the jury person has nothing better to do when not at the courthouse than approve the conversion docs. We don't know what other responsibilites (s)he has that might be more important, like possibly the next (unanounced) 5E book, or maybe a family. It's much easier to believe it is all a conspiracy.




Sure I suppose.  Would wager that means conversion docs are pretty low on the totem pole then if their approval essentially got cut while this person is out, which doesn't bother me too much as I'm not really interested in converting old stuff.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2015)

GlobeOfDankness said:


> it's almost like it doesn't make any logical sense (like a lie).




That is ridiculus! WotC's communications have been top notch since 5e's launched! 

In fact, communications are WotC's strenght, right after producing affordable books!


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2015)

Eric V said:


> Maybe...but it especially sucks when one is being told to convert stuff from DnD classics as a solution to not a lot of product coming out...



Yes, yes it does suck. But it's hard to get mad when it's because someone got stuck on jury duty for five months.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 18, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Yes, yes it does suck. But it's hard to get mad when it's because someone got stuck on jury duty for five months.




Well, it _should_ be, but apparently...


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 18, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Yes, yes it does suck. But it's hard to get mad when it's because someone got stuck on jury duty for five months.




I disagree.

I don't think any business in the world would have the chutzpah to tell their customers/potential customers, "Sorry, Mr X is on jury duty for four months. No one else in our organisation has the skills or time to look at that product you want until he's back, so just hang tight, ok?"

Even if the product in question is free, it's something you've promised your customers. Advertise that your team and/or budget is so small that you can't work around the unavailability of one person is, to be frank, somewhat mind-blowing to me.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2015)

Colmarr said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I don't think any business in the world would have the chutzpah to tell their customers/potential customers, "Sorry, Mr X is on jury duty for four months. No one else in our organisation has the skills or time to look at that product you want until he's back, so just hang tight, ok?"
> 
> Even if the product in question is free, it's something you've promised your customers. Advertise that your team and/or budget is so small that you can't work around the unavailability of one person is, to be frank, somewhat mind-blowing to me.



It could be a micro-managing individual who likes that they're needed. Or the redundancy in the department could have been laid off so there's no one who knows the details. 
Either way, I doubt the D&D team has any control and would really like not to rely on that one person.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

Colmarr said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I don't think any business in the world would have the chutzpah to tell their customers/potential customers, "Sorry, Mr X is on jury duty for four months. No one else in our organisation has the skills or time to look at that product you want until he's back, so just hang tight, ok?"
> 
> Even if the product in question is free, it's something you've promised your customers. Advertise that your team and/or budget is so small that you can't work around the unavailability of one person is, to be frank, somewhat mind-blowing to me.




Are you for real? Businesses break promises all the time, and far bigger ones than a free conversion guide for a D&D edition at that. Wizards doesn't _have_ to put out a conversion guide. No one's pre-ordered them, no one's Kickstartered them. No money has changed hands. Wizards could decide tomorrow that they don't think putting out conversion guides would make good business sense, or would eat up employee time that could be better spent on other products, or Mearls and co. could just announce they didn't feel the project creatively and axe it.

There's eight folks working on the D&D rpg right now - seven, if one of them is out for jury duty for the next few months. If none of the seven others can handle the conversion docs, it's probably because they're working on other stuff!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2015)

Colmarr said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I don't think any business in the world would have the chutzpah to tell their customers/potential customers, "Sorry, Mr X is on jury duty for four months. No one else in our organisation has the skills or time to look at that product you want until he's back, so just hang tight, ok?"




_Happens every day.  _

If your business is centered around the skills of a key person, and that person is unavailable, nothing can be done.  I'm a solo practice lawyer.  If I can't do X task, X task won't get done.  The last time I got called for jury duty, it set me back more than a week.

My father is a solo practice doctor.  He nearly wound up getting called for jury duty on a capital murder case.  That cost him a day.  He had a health scare that hospitalized him for most of a week.  His patients had to wait or make other arrangements.

And when he got called up for Desert Storm for several months, it nearly bankrupted him.

My Mom handles his books.  She went on a trip for a week in 2013, leaving him to do his own accounting.  He screwed it up so badly, the staff was lucky to get paid- we're _still_ cleaning up some of his mistakes.

One of my computer jockey buddies was a member of a 3 man team.  Over time, that team was whittled down to him.  They refused a reasonable salary increase request, and he opted to look for another job.  They hired another guy, but it turned out the replacement wasn't as proficient at the job as my buddy.  He got hired back a "consultant" to train his replacement for a few months...at a higher salary.  In the time between his quitting and their realization of how badly screwed they were, the company was stymied.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Are you for real? Businesses break promises all the time, and far bigger ones than a free conversion guide for a D&D edition at that.




And how many of them advertise the fact that the promise is broken because they can't handle one guy being absent? I'm not a 5e player so the delay doesn't bother me at all but the PR stuns me.

I didn't know there were only eight people working on the brand. I can understand that losing access to 1/8 of your workforce is a problem. Perhaps not as much of a problem as the fact that the workforce is only 8 to begin with...


----------



## bogmad (Mar 18, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Since Mearls said "approve" not write, it's probably someone in a managerial or legal role and not really part of the (small) D&D team.




I had the same thought.  Then I thought it was just amazing if they were from legal and actually got selected to the jury! How rarely do both sides let an actual lawyer slip through selection?
Don't get me wrong though: Sucks for the delay, but really, life happens sometimes. Let's not protest the moon landing just yet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2015)

It is rare but it happens.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

Colmarr said:


> And how many of them advertise the fact that the promise is broken because they can't handle one guy being absent? I'm not a 5e player so the delay doesn't bother me at all but the PR stuns me.
> 
> I didn't know there were only eight people working on the brand. I can understand that losing access to 1/8 of your workforce is a problem. Perhaps not as much of a problem as the fact that the workforce is only 8 to begin with...




Eh, it's only a problem if you're expecting to see a lot of 5E product come down the pipeline. Keeping the D&D staff small means less expenses means more profit for the division. I believe the actual size of the D&D division is ~16 (not sure if that's the number from before or after recent layoffs), but only half of it is working on the RPG side of things. The other half is working on licensing and branding side of things - stuff like D&D board games, video games and movies. Tabletop games are not a very large market, and Wizards is looking to expand D&D beyond it. The tabletop game will still exist but it'll only be receiving minimal support to keep the name alive, now that the core books have sold the real profits will come from the other half of the team that have nothing to do with the game itself.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 18, 2015)

My theory on this is that the conversion guide isn't done; but what point would there be in working on it, knowing that it couldn't be approved until the guy gets back from jury duty? Might as well work on things that have a chance of getting out the door before then.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Can they delay something that they never actually announced?


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 18, 2015)

You guys are living in serious fantasy land if you believe that jury duty is the real reason this hasn't been released. 

Sure, I would believe it's been delayed because of that, but if WoTC truly only have one individual who can approve certain aspects then they are an extremely unprofessional and dysfunctional organisation. And theyre not. So...

Like I said, it's on the back burner. Id be more comfortable if they just come out and said that. Reminds me of an old boss of mine who used to say "I'm sure I sent you that email with that proposal, it must be stuck in my drafts".


----------



## Carlsen Chris (Mar 18, 2015)

Belisarius76;6562604You take it how you wish mate said:
			
		

> We probably will "mate."  As for the free speech under attack bit--my understanding of free speech includes everyone.  An individual is free to engage in any kind of speech they like, and others are equally free to rip them a new one if they don't like what they say.
> 
> Heck, free speech even allows you to whinge and whine if you want to.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 18, 2015)

This stuff baffles me. I won't even pretend to know how smaller divisions within a huge publically traded company operate, but my gut feeling is that no one would be so essential that their absence would entirely halt specific projects until they return. 

Side note: My favorite quote from the Hasbro Wikipedia page...
"With an attack of termites on the line's salad bowls, the line collapsed."


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 18, 2015)

neobolts said:


> This stuff baffles me. I won't even pretend to know how smaller divisions within a huge publically traded company operate, but my gut feeling is that no one would be so essential that their absence would entirely halt specific projects until they return.




Well, since the D&D team is now so small, and since this is a free product, I can see how it would stay with one person as opposed to being reassigned (which they likely *would* reassign if the product was going to directly generate revenue).


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Mar 18, 2015)

I'm just glad I was born in a free country where you could get out of jury duty if your business or employment depended on it.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I'm just glad I was born in a free country where you could get out of jury duty if your business or employment depended on it.




Yes, but neither Hasbro's business nor this person's employment depend on it. All we've had is a bit of a delay of a free guide.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 18, 2015)

This company baffles me. They continue to find ways to bungle things, no matter what the context. They have a home run in 5E yet they continue to find ways to fumble the ball.

WotC = Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl. Hmm...is it a Washington state thing?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Carlsen Chris said:


> We probably will "mate."





"Commas" are your friends, my friend. 


There seem to be a number of questions raised by all of this:

Was the bulk of the conversion guide, that is awaiting approval for four months, developed during the playtest period?

Have playtesters been in on the process of creating the conversion guide at all?

If they have been in on the process, why haven't we heard about playtesters being in on this process?

Why haven't we seen polls and surveys on details of this process?

Any answers to these or related questions that come to mind?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 18, 2015)

I am so not surprised by this. I have been running two 5E campaigns for months now partially using converted material from AD&D and B/X. Conversion guide?  Not a high priority.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> This company baffles me. They continue to find ways to bungle things, no matter what the context. They have a home run in 5E yet they continue to find ways to fumble the ball.




This puzzles me. While I can (and have) been critical of WotC over several things, I don't see how _this one_ is indicative of a fumble.

They've had one of their few employees pulled into jury duty that will likely last 4 months. That's hardly WotC's fault!

And while they could probably shuffle things around a bit so that someone else does it, that's a question of priorities: is there someone else working on something lower priority? And is it worth taking a hit of retasking that person, letting them get up to speed on the halted project, and then finishing it off?

It would appear that the answer is no. Perhaps everyone else is busy putting the finishing touches to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, or to the next storyline, or the OGL, or bringing back the magazines, or whatever... I don't really know what it is, but if they're all on higher priority stuff, then fair enough.

And credit to WotC where it's due: they didn't have to tell us why there was a delay. Heck, they didn't even have to tell us that there _was_ a delay, since they'd never actually told us when to expect these guides. But they did, and given the complaints about lack of communication, that's at least a step in the right direction.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> This puzzles me. While I can (and have) been critical of WotC over several things, I don't see how _this one_ is indicative of a fumble.





Perhaps because it wasn't developed by playtesters during the playtesting process running up to the release of Basic or the core books and shared at that time instead of six months after the fact having to explain that the conversion guide for the new edition might be approved sometime around the one-year anniversary of the Starter Set and Basic Rules.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

People are also assuming that "approval" means signing off on a finished product, but it's also entirely possible that they're talking rules approval, not editing or legal approval. Who's to say the dedicated rules crafter on the project isn't the one out of commission, Jeremy Crawford for example, and their internal playtesting has shown the docs need another pass before they're ready?

Would anyone actually prefer they pull someone off of a hypothetical FRCS or working on Dragon or Dungeon for these docs?


----------



## meomwt (Mar 18, 2015)

Perhaps The Guv'Nor could organise a contest. Write a set of Conversion Guidelines, whoever gets closest to what eventually sees light of day wins EN5ider for a month. Or something similar. 

Heck, I'm busy converteering T1-4 flying by the seat of my pants. It might not look pretty, but it will be FUN.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 18, 2015)

Is it Jeremy Crawford? Is Jeremy Crawford on jury duty, that's why we are not getting the sage advice column?



Jester Canuck said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Since Mearls said "approve" not write, it's probably someone in a managerial or legal role and not really part of the (small) D&D team.




Why would legal need to approve a document on how to use, say, 3E materials or characters in a 5E game?

I don't think we are talking about OGL or equivalent. That could be delayed for lots of reasons.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Perhaps because it wasn't developed by playtesters during the playtesting process running up to the release of Basic or the core books and shared at that time instead of six months after the fact having to explain that the conversion guide for the new edition might be approved sometime around the one-year anniversary of the Starter Set and Basic Rules.




They were working out what 5E was going to look like during the play test, and the game was still in flux even by early 2014 - why would they have wasted time working on conversions when the game was still rapidly changing? They rolled out the three core books over five months because they needed the whole team working on one book at a time, are you arguing that they should have delayed that further to start working on conversion docs?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> They were working out what 5E was going to look like during the play test, and the game was still in flux even by early 2014 - why would they have wasted time working on conversions when the game was still rapidly changing? They rolled out the three core books over five months because they needed the whole team working on one book at a time, are you arguing that they should have delayed that further to start working on conversion docs?





You can't possibly think it isn't something that would have lent itself to more easily being developed in tandem during the playtest.  I am sure you understand that part of their goal for the edition was to integrate aspects from all previous editions and utilize people who primarily play one or more of the various editions.  I can't doubt you comprehend that the surveys at that time included gleaning information from these people regarding what they liked from previous editions, what they'd like to see brought forward, and how it would translate from an older edition to the new one.  At some point you have to realize that this is the crux of what the conversion guide is and that it is a no-brainer to put it together at the same time.  At some point someone needs to stop making excuses re-examine an employment policy that cuts them so thin they can't complete work this Spring that should have been done last Summer.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> Is it Jeremy Crawford? Is Jeremy Crawford on jury duty, that's why we are not getting the sage advice column?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let me clarify, I just threw out Crawford's name as an example. Jurors aren't allowed to publically discuss trials and if this is a high profile case it's possible that means even acknowledging publically that you have jury duty (as someone could theoretically deduce what case they're on and try to influence their verdict).

Honestly we probably know too much about the situation already, Mearls probably shouldn't have said anything at all. That's the danger of sharing some info with one fan who's asked over the internet, now everyone knows more than they should - someone in this thread has already investigated and found out that there are three ongoing murder cases in that county.

If I were a judge presiding over one of those cases, I _really_ wouldn't be comfortable with the internet taking such a close look at one of my jurors, even if it is just one thread in a tabletop RPG forum.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 18, 2015)

Shocking that a tiny staff can't deliver when one person is gone. Shocking.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> This puzzles me. While I can (and have) been critical of WotC over several things, I don't see how _this one_ is indicative of a fumble.
> 
> They've had one of their few employees pulled into jury duty that will likely last 4 months. That's hardly WotC's fault!
> 
> ...




I get that jury duty happens - hey, I actually just served a few weeks ago (although my trial was one day, thankfully). None of us knows the real story, which is undoubtedly more complex than we realize. But I'm simply pointing out that WotC finds a way, one way or another, to fumble things - and this isn't the only thing over the last year. I'm not even expecting perfectly smooth sailing and I'm not one to overly complain about things. I'm not speaking out of nerdrage, but more bemusement.

With regards to this communication, why not explain a bit more? They know their overly sensitive audience and that everything will be picked apart, over- and mis-interpreted. Why not say, "The guy who needs to do the final work is on jury duty AND we can't allocate other resources because everyone else is working on the OGL, Forgotten Realms setting book, etc - which you're going to love!"

Often it is what you don't say - and, as usual, they're not giving us much here.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 18, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Why not say, "The guy who needs to do the final work is on jury duty AND we can't allocate other resources because everyone else is working on the OGL, Forgotten Realms setting book, etc - which you're going to love!"
> 
> Often it is what you don't say - and, as usual, they're not giving us much here.




Because that wouldn't matter either.  For a lot of people it STILL wouldn't be enough.  It's NEVER enough.  No matter what WotC does... a segment of populace is going to complain about it and say that WotC is mismanaged, horrible, unable to do the simplest things, yadda yadda yadda.

They could have said nothing about the docs.  People would complain.  So they give a reason WHY they are late.  People are still complaining because it wasn't "enough".  They could go ahead and add in the couple extra sentences you mentioned in your post, and people would then come back that THAT wasn't enough.

It's NEVER enough.  Ever.  Some people will find ANY reason to think WotC is horrible and constantly go on about it (here and elsewhere).  It makes me wonder why any of these people even still bother to play the game in the first place when there are some many other companies out there that they probably think are the bees knees and they could play those games and have nothing but sunshine and daisies fly out of their books.  I know I'd love it if all the people who can't help but complain about every single thing WotC does would finally just crap or get off the pot.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> You can't possibly think it isn't something that would have lent itself to more easily being developed in tandem during the playtest.




It probably would have been easier, but it would still have taken time, which means delaying the release.



> At some point you have to realize that this is the crux of what the conversion guide is and that it is a no-brainer to put it together at the same time.




"You can have the PHB released in Aug 2014 without a conversion guide, or you can have the PHB released in July 2015 with a conversion guide. Choose."

It's _really_ not a no-brainer.



> At some point someone needs to stop making excuses re-examine an employment policy that cuts them so thin they can't complete work this Spring that should have been done last Summer.




Unless of course WotC don't agree that it should have been done last Summer.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> Why would legal need to approve a document on how to use, say, 3E materials or characters in a 5E game?



Well, it's not a writer. We've seen them tweet and post articles. So it's either a manager or someone in another department (although, Crawford being absent would explain the first vague Sage Advice column and lack of a second). 

I imagine legal needs to sign off on everything at WotC to make sure it complies to policies and doesn't include anything that could lead to a lawsuit. 



TerraDave said:


> I don't think we are talking about OGL or equivalent. That could be delayed for lots of reasons.



But it could easily be the same reason.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I'm not speaking out of nerdrage, but more bemusement.





I'm with you on this.  It's mind-bogglingly delicious.




Mercurius said:


> Why not say, "The guy who needs to do the final work is on jury duty AND we can't allocate other resources because everyone else is working on the OGL(. . .)"





You're cracking me up, man.  The DMG was late, they're struggling to get other products out that make money with an ever-decreasing staff, and now they're explaining that someone being out on jury duty is delaying a project from last Summer another third of a year.  They aren't working on the OGL, IMO.  They probably don't even have time to have meetings where they think up ways to imply they are while not committing to it.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> It probably would have been easier, but it would still have taken time, which means delaying the release.





Call me an optimist.  I see a staff that is half full where you see a reason to cut and delay projects.




delericho said:


> "You can have the PHB released in Aug 2014 without a conversion guide, or you can have the PHB released in July 2015 with a conversion guide. Choose."
> 
> It's _really_ not a no-brainer.





. . . or have enough staff to include the conversion guide . . .




delericho said:


> Unless of course WotC don't agree that it should have been done last Summer.





Sure, I can imagine some folks would disagree that the best time for the conversion guide is when the new edition is released.  I wouldn't want them anywhere near the D&D IP but I can imagine them.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> That is ridiculus! WotC's communications have been top notch since 5e's launched!
> 
> In fact, communications are WotC's strenght, right after producing affordable books!




 Is it sad if I can't tell if this is sarcasm or the legitimate opinions of a rabid fan?


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 18, 2015)

Jury duty, the new 'printer problems' for the 21st century.

Not really, but it had to be said. That's got to be an annoying wrench thrown into schedules when the work is already done or mostly done.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> This puzzles me. While I can (and have) been critical of WotC over several things, I don't see how _this one_ is indicative of a fumble.




Speaking as someone without a real dog in this hunt, I would hazard its because traditionally and appropriately, the standard time for releasing a conversion guide is the same day, or week, as the initial release of a new edition, not a year or two down the road. Most companies do normally manage to pull it off regardless of staff size.


----------



## halfling rogue (Mar 18, 2015)

You know what would be cool, especially after the delay? If they released a conversion guide for each past edition along with a module of each edition. Maybe released in an article as a kind of "here's how we used the guide to convert this module from Edition X". So that we could get a conversion guide, the 'how we did it' article, and the new updated 5e adventure.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Call me an optimist.  I see a staff that is half full where you see a reason to cut and delay projects.




D&D's last major release (Essentials) had been underwhelming. They then were given two years to work on a new edition while their part of the business went on with virtually no profit at all. And through all of that there was no guarantee that their new edition would make any money.

Frankly, it's lucky 5e came at all.



> . . . or have enough staff to include the conversion guide . . .




I expect Mearls' requests for more men met with the same response as those of Commander Jerjerrod.



> Sure, I can imagine some folks would disagree that the best time for the conversion guide is when the new edition is released.




There's what would be best and there's what's possible.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Speaking as someone without a real dog in this hunt, I would hazard its because traditionally and appropriately, the standard time for releasing a conversion guide is the same day, or week, as the initial release of a new edition, not a year or two down the road. Most companies do normally manage to pull it off regardless of staff size.




I have to agree with this. By the time they finally get it out, the number of people who will care will have dropped significantly. For all the decent work they've done with 5e, there are some really odd and frustrating gaps. And this is the latest of them.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> D&D's last major release (Essentials) had been underwhelming. They then were given two years to work on a new edition while their part of the business went on with virtually no profit at all. And through all of that there was no guarantee that their new edition would make any money.
> 
> Frankly, it's lucky 5e came at all.





Essentials?  I've seen nothing but glowing reports, insistence that WotC was never more profitable (just look at their DDI subs!), and that they had more people playing the edition than ever before.  Companies with no more than a few people with full-time jobs outside of the gaming industry and tiny budgets manage to put out rules for games year in and year out on shorter timelines.  I'm sorry but the "WotC doesn't have the budget" excuse for not delivering on schedule and for not being properly staffed rings hollow.




delericho said:


> I expect Mearls' requests for more men met with the same response as those of Commander Jerjerrod.








delericho said:


> There's what would be best and there's what's possible.





Nope.  As Wicht said, plenty of companies manage it all the time and its standard procedure to time the conversion guide with the release.  I'm not sure why this is even up for discussion in anyone's mind.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Essentials?  I've seen nothing but glowing reports, insistence that WotC was never more profitable (just look at their DDI subs!), and that they had more people playing the edition than ever before.




Yeah. Did you believe that?



> I'm sorry but the "WotC doesn't have the budget" excuse for not delivering on schedule and for not being properly staffed rings hollow.




It's not "WotC doesn't have the budget" and it's not "Hasbro doesn't have the budget". It's "D&D doesn't have the budget". And the evidence is simple: they have 15 staff.

You can argue that they should have more people. I'd agree with you. *But they don't.* The powers-that-be at Hasbro have decided that that's the staff they will have, those are the resources they can use, and that's it.

So, given that they have those people, and given that they have to bring in X million dollars in profit from D&D this year, what do you want them working on? Choose carefully.



> Nope.  As Wicht said, plenty of companies manage it all the time and its standard procedure to time the conversion guide with the release.  I'm not sure why this is even up for discussion in anyone's mind.




Because the reality is as I stated before: they could release the PHB in August 2014 without a conversion guide or they could release it in July 2015 with one.

That's the choice. They couldn't do more with the staff they had. They couldn't get more staff.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2015)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I'm just glad I was born in a free country where you could get out of jury duty if your business or employment depended on it.



I don't know where you live, but in the USA, 

1) it is a crime at the state and federal level to fire someone for serving on jury duty.

2) you can get out of jury duty if you can prove you're a sole provider for your family, your business would shutter if you served, are a primary or sole caregiver for a small child, invalid or certain other classes of people, etc.



Trickster Spirit said:


> Let me clarify, I just threw out Crawford's name as an example. Jurors aren't allowed to publically discuss trials and if this is a high profile case it's possible that means even acknowledging publically that you have jury duty (as someone could theoretically deduce what case they're on and try to influence their verdict).
> 
> Honestly we probably know too much about the situation already, Mearls probably shouldn't have said anything at all. That's the danger of sharing some info with one fan who's asked over the internet, now everyone knows more than they should - someone in this thread has already investigated and found out that there are three ongoing murder cases in that county.
> 
> If I were a judge presiding over one of those cases, I _really_ wouldn't be comfortable with the internet taking such a close look at one of my jurors, even if it is just one thread in a tabletop RPG forum.



Remember Barbara Adams?

http://www.cnn.com/US/fringe/9603/03-14/trek.html


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> You can argue that they should have more people. I'd agree with you. *But they don't.*





I do and I will continue to argue that position.




delericho said:


> Because the reality is as I stated before: they could release the PHB in August 2014 without a conversion guide or they could release it in July 2015 with one.
> 
> That's the choice. They couldn't do more with the staff they had. They couldn't get more staff.





Nope, it's not the choice.  It's what you have allowed yourself to be convinced is the choice.  What we have is no choice and we get what we get.  What I am arguing is that we would get better from a larger staff, and you agree.  So, we've gone round the tree and we agree on the cause but you've come to terms with the result and I have not.  I think you and I are just going to have to leave ourselves at that point since we are repeating ourselves.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> Because the reality is as I stated before: they could release the PHB in August 2014 without a conversion guide or they could release it in July 2015 with one.
> 
> That's the choice.




You can tell me that those are the only two choices but I would not believe you (just like I never believed the 4e warriors that tried to convince me to discount all the evidence of that editions failure with the fan-base at large). The ability of others to do conversion guides with less make me believe that WotC could have done it if they had really wanted to and had made it a priority. Paizo released its conversion guide for Pathfinder within a couple weeks, iirc, of their Core Rulebook being released and they were not the industry leader at the time, had a much smaller budget and more than a few irons in the fire. I must believe, based on my experience and my observation of the situation that it is an issue of Will, not an issue of Ability (and same goes for the 5e OGL which is looking, sadly, more and more like a pipe dream).


----------



## Torgaard (Mar 18, 2015)

buda said:


> The person in question should have worn wizard robes to jury selection.




Exactly. HERE are some more tips from Liz Lemon.


----------



## thalmin (Mar 18, 2015)

What is expected in a conversion guide? Just one generic guide to work for every module ever written? A guide for each editon's module. A guide for each module? Not every class or race or monster is yet in 5E, so we need different substitutions. Most monsters are either stronger or weaker than in previous editions, or even mixed (like stronger offensively but weaker defensively). Magic item expectations are very different from all previous editions. Treasure levels are different. Many spells work differently, or don't exist, or are on different class lists. Saves are different. Villians need to be converted to 5E equivalents, but individually must fit the story by theme as well as abilities. Bounded Accuracy changes things a lot.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I do and I will continue to argue that position.




I would ask why.  I mean, why argue a position with people who have no ability to change the situation?  What constructive point is there to arguing over it?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I would ask why.  I mean, why argue a position with people who have no ability to change the situation?  What constructive point is there to arguing over it?





Stating an issue that exists as problematic allows it to be openly discussed and when others disagree with a position they engage in civil debate to test their own theories as well as to come to a better understanding of the positions of others.  I see no reason for you and I to have a meta-argument for the reasons that people have discussions and subsequent arguments.  If it is against board policy to have these discussions or to have subsequent debates then please issue a warning as a moderator.  Otherwise, I'd just as soon not go down another rabbit hole with you at your instigation, please.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 18, 2015)

thalmin said:


> What is expected in a conversion guide? Just one generic guide to work for every module ever written? A guide for each editon's module. A guide for each module? Not every class or race or monster is yet in 5E, so we need different substitutions. Most monsters are either stronger or weaker than in previous editions, or even mixed (like stronger offensively but weaker defensively). Magic item expectations are very different from all previous editions. Treasure levels are different. Many spells work differently, or don't exist, or are on different class lists. Saves are different. Villians need to be converted to 5E equivalents, but individually must fit the story by theme as well as abilities. Bounded Accuracy changes things a lot.




This. I really don't get the driving need for this. They aren't going to convert all previous monsters, and the DMG has guidelines for making your own monsters. A new monster book is probably among the first rule supplements we'd see.

Converting characters? Just remake them as best you can and kill off your magical gear. Warlord players get told to just play a crappy battlemaster, everyone else just remakes their character. 4E? Reduce your level by a third since there's only 20 levels. The old guidelines for 1st/2nd edition to third would work for multiclass, since 5E is basically back to 3E's multiclass rules. And no one really multiclassed in 4E outside of the feat anyways because the system sucked. 

What are people really expecting here? What are people really expecting from this? I saw Sir Antoine hopes that it will convert 5th to 2nd, but I'd wager it almost assuredly won't. Conversion guides generally point you towards the edition in print, not the other way around.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I do and I will continue to argue that position.
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not the choice.  It's what you have allowed yourself to be convinced is the choice.  What we have is no choice and we get what we get.  What I am arguing is that we would get better from a larger staff, and you agree.  So, we've gone round the tree and we agree on the cause but you've come to terms with the result and I have not.  I think you and I are just going to have to leave ourselves at that point since we are repeating ourselves.




The fans would get better from a larger staff, yes. The only question that matters though is if WotC would get better were there to be a larger staff.

If the increased profits from more products aren't significantly bigger than the increased expenses of paying more staff / printing storing and distributing said products, than what obligation do they have to put that money into a larger D&D team? They could put it elsewhere and see a larger return and so that is what they have done.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Converting characters? Just remake them as best you can and kill off your magical gear. Warlord players get told to just play a crappy battlemaster, everyone else just remakes their character. 4E? Reduce your level by a third since there's only 20 levels. The old guidelines for 1st/2nd edition to third would work for multiclass, since 5E is basically back to 3E's multiclass rules. And no one really multiclassed in 4E outside of the feat anyways because the system sucked.





That's probably some good basic conversion advice.  I think that would be enough to get many of us here on EN World started on dealing with a conversion on our own though we'd probably miss more than a few things without a standard official checklist of some kind.  And we'd certainly not all come out with the same results though I'd imagine some of the conclusions would at least be similar.  Good start!


----------



## weldon (Mar 18, 2015)

What I'd like to see in the conversion guide are guidelines for adjusting challenges (monsters, NPCs, traps, skill challenges, etc.) from modules produced for previous editions. I don't really have a desire for guidelines to convert PCs over. What I want is to use old modules with brand new 5e PCs.

I'd want settings conversion guides for every previously supported setting, everything from Al Qadim to Dark Sun (similar to the Eberron guide). These could be released as playtest documents that are open to revision and fine tuning, but represent a starting point with which to engage the player community in the discussion. These setting conversion guides do not have to preclude Wizards from making brand new setting books or box sets. Just something to help people that have long-running campaigns set in certain worlds start running their games with new 5e characters.

If I were really allowing myself to daydream, I'd want 2-3 page guides for the 10 most popular modules from each edition. Pointing out issues, suggesting tweaks, discussing where 5e mechanics like advantage could be used, etc. Those guides would have prominent links to purchase the modules from dndclassics.com to justify the effort.

If I get some of this in 4 months, I'll still be happy. I'll be finishing up PotA about then and it should work out perfectly.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> The fans would get better from a larger staff, yes.




Okay, we have some common ground.



Trickster Spirit said:


> The only question that matters though is if WotC would get better were there to be a larger staff.




Well, not the only question but I agree it is an important one.



Trickster Spirit said:


> If the increased profits from more products aren't significantly bigger than the increased expenses of paying more staff / printing storing and distributing said products, than what obligation do they have to put that money into a larger D&D team? They could put it elsewhere and see a larger return and so that is what they have done.




You're arguing from of position of believing it is a foregone conclusion that profits trump quality, support, and customer satisfaction (not that quality, support, and/or customer satisfaction can be completely ignored, just that profits always trump them).  No matter what I say and no matter what you argue, you will always wind up at that result.  At least we agree there is a staffing problem.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Converting characters? Just remake them...




I take it you weren't around for the 4e conversion, when WotC said there would be no guide coming and that everyone should just start new campaigns? If you think _this_ is bad, well, it's nothing by comparison.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 18, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> 4 months? That's a hell of a trial.




It's probably a grand jury. Most people are summoned for petit juries (what we typically just call juries), and those are usually short - it's very rare to have a trial go longer than a few days. Grand Juries, on the other hand, have the job of determining whether or not people are indicted for crimes. They don't do trials...they go over heaps of paperwork and such from the state to determine whether or not some is to be charged in the first place. This requires a good bit of training on the front end for these people, and then they have a stack of cases to work through, usually, before that Grand Jury is dismissed, their work done.

And there's your American civics lesson for the day!

(I used to teach American Gov't...couldn't help myself)


----------



## Tormyr (Mar 18, 2015)

weldon said:


> What I'd like to see in the conversion guide are guidelines for adjusting challenges (monsters, NPCs, traps, skill challenges, etc.) from modules produced for previous editions. I don't really have a desire for guidelines to convert PCs over. What I want is to use old modules with brand new 5e PCs.




This is what we have been doing in my 3.5 AP conversion.  For encounter difficulty, I make a medium encounter for a party of the same level as the 3.5 Encounter Level regardless of the level of the party.  So if I have 4 level 10 PCs in an EL 13 encounter, I make a medium encounter for 4 level 13 PCs.  This becomes a hard encounter for the 10th level party.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I would ask why.  I mean, why argue a position with people who have no ability to change the situation?  What constructive point is there to arguing over it?




Are you new to EN World?


----------



## Iosue (Mar 18, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> With regards to this communication, why not explain a bit more? They know their overly sensitive audience and that everything will be picked apart, over- and mis-interpreted. Why not say, "The guy who needs to do the final work is on jury duty AND we can't allocate other resources because everyone else is working on the OGL, Forgotten Realms setting book, etc - which you're going to love!"



Because some guy asked Mearls on Twitter about it, and Mearls, likely not expecting or caring that it would become a huge thread on EN World, answered as best he could in 140 characters.  I imagine he hardly felt he would have to justify the rescheduling of soft plans for release of free material on the website when he had much bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> At least we agree there is a staffing problem.




Heh, well we would if I didn't think the current amount of staff is putting out content at pace that I am personally very comfortable with. 



Mark CMG said:


> You're arguing from of position of believing it is a foregone conclusion that profits trump quality, support, and customer satisfaction (not that quality, support, and/or customer satisfaction can be completely ignored, just that profits always trump them).  No matter what I say and no matter what you argue, you will always wind up at that result.  At least we agree there is a staffing problem.




Eh, I think beating the horse to paste with a stick (it's been dead for ages now) has lead me to harden my words some - I do think it is a foregone conclusion that a company should invest its resources into avenues that will yield the best returns on those investments. I hate examples of greedy companies screwing over good people to make a quick profit as much as the next person, but, well, I work for a company, and my livelihood and the livelihood of all my coworkers relies on our company navigating the economy smartly. 

We could absolutely do a better job at quality / support / customer satisfaction, I think any company could and should always improve those metrics, but at the end of the day the bosses will make judgement calls that they think will best help grow the company but. Sure there are s / sociopaths who've risen into a position of power and only care about their yacht / sports car / quarterly bonus, but even a good corporate decision maker is going to value the team members who depend on him/her and view the customers as a close second. I don't begrudge any company putting their bottom line first, that's just how companies work.

As you've pointed out though I don't think quality, support or customer satisfaction should be ignored, but it comes down to differing standards of what those things mean. Wizards has put out an extremely high quality edition. Support is subjective - I've gotten all the support I personally need in form of the player companions in the  I'd be happy with a little more but have no problems with the current pace.

Your standards for what you're hoping to get out of the relationship with WotC are likely higher, and that's fine.  I'm sure Mearls and co. would prefer you were happier, apart from seeing like generally nice dudes it's just solid business sense to make sure your customers are happy with you. But if you're looking for more than what they're capable of giving you I'm not sure what they could possibly do to make that happen. 

In other words, the fact that the size of the staff is small isn't the actual point of contention, it's that the amount of support Wizards is looking to provide 5E with only requires a small staff. It's not "we'd like to put out more, but we've only got 8 people" its, "we've decided to put this much material out, and only need 8 people to do it." If that system works for them than I'm not sure it's really a "problem", just not meeting some fan's expectations.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 18, 2015)

DaveMage said:


> Are you new to EN World?




GENIUSES! Geeks are so funny...and can be so tiring, too, in our dogged pursuit of our small arguments and precision related to tiny specs of trivia. Game on, people! Once more unto the breach!

When viewing "debates" like this I nod, I smile, I drop a comment like this, and then I go find something useful to do with my time.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2015)

I'm a bit bemused by some  people saying the size of the staff is the problem and Mearls probably asked for more and was refused. I mean they did just fire two editors who were working directly on the RPG and hired instead a communication manager and a license overseer, who both will not work on the RPG. 

I'm not sure this was done without Mearls being consulted, his approval or that it wasn't his request in the first place.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> It's not "we'd like to put out more, but we've only got 8 people" its, "we've decided to put this much material out, and only need 8 people to do it." If that system works for them than I'm not sure it's really a "problem", just not meeting some fan's expectations.





I think you've summed up our positions pretty well but there is a bit of a disconnect here.  It's not like they never planned on having a conversion guide, and never said they would have one.  They did plan one, have worked on one, and have delayed it almost to the point of it being no use for their own bolstering of the edition meant to bring back all of the previous edition players.  That's not just folks wanting something from them that WotC didn't plan, that's WotC failing to follow through on a project in a timely manner due to staffing problems.  So, you have to understand that we're not really discussing what it is that folks might or might not be allowed to expect but rather what WotC expected of themselves.  It's fine to argue that you don't expect it from them and that maybe other folks shouldn't either but the discussion is really about what is expected of WotC based on what WotC said they expected of themselves.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 18, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> This company baffles me. They continue to find ways to bungle things, no matter what the context. They have a home run in 5E yet they continue to find ways to fumble the ball.
> 
> WotC = Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl. Hmm...is it a Washington state thing?




Don't forget, Washington was now of the first states to legalize marijuana. 

Just an observation.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I think you've summed up our positions pretty well but there is a bit of a disconnect here.  It's not like they never planned on having a conversion guide, and never said they would have one.  They did plan one, have worked on one, and have delayed it almost to the point of it being no use for their own bolstering of the edition meant to bring back all of the previous edition players.  That's not just folks wanting something from them that WotC didn't plan, that's WotC failing to follow through on a project in a timely manner due to staffing problems.  So, you have to understand that we're not really discussing what it is that folks might or might not be allowed to expect but rather what WotC expected of themselves.  It's fine to argue that you don't expect it from them and that maybe other folks shouldn't either but the discussion is really about what is expected of WotC based on what WotC said they expected of themselves.




Right, sorry there was a bit of topic drift on that point as the size of the staff is so closely tied to the amount of D&D products can come out. That is distinct from whether or not they're able to achieve their own plans, you're right. I do think it is a relevant side note to keep in mind while discussing what exactly their plans are, though.

But in this case I'm afraid it's just a matter of priorities being different. I honestly think they just view the conversion guides as a bennie they can give to the fans, not something that's going to "bolster the edition" in any real sense. I'm honestly expecting them to be 90% a rehashing of content that's already in the DMG with some examples for each edition. They said that we could expect them early 2015 because they figured they could find the time to put it alongside the "real projects" but the removal of one of their critical team members means they're not going to be able to spare the manpower for it.

You're right that the discussion is about what we should be able to expect from WotC based on what they've said about their own expectations, I just think we're drawing different conclusions from what they're saying. Last year they said "we're taking a bit of a breather after the DMG and conversion docs will probably be done in January", and I expected that to be the case. Now Mearls is saying a long jury duty case that's lasted since January has pushed it back and I expect the conversion docs to come out when they're back and can find the time to put them out. 

I'm not sure what your expectations for the game are moving forward - it sounds like you were really hoping to have those conversion docs already and I'm sorry that that's the case. 

I don't have any problem taking Mearls and co. at their word, but can also understand that plans change or fall through and so expect cancellations and delays to happen. Basically, I see others discuss and debate their lofty expectations for what WotC will provide for the game, but to my eyes, it looks like most of the work on 5E has been accomplished. I suppose I don't expect much at all to be honest but that's not a pessimistic view - I just think they've put out a very good game and that not much else is needed, at least for a while. In my eyes anything that comes out at all after the core books, conversion docs included, is simply gravy.

Your mileage obviously varies, but from a catering-to-your-customers perspective I think for fifth edition Wizards is specifically targeting casual players who are going to be even less upset over the lack of conversion documents or other supplementary materials than I.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> I'm not sure what your expectations for the game are moving forward (. . .)
> 
> I suppose I don't expect much at all to be honest (. . .)





I concur but with different details.  Nevertheless, let's cite this as additional common ground.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Paizo released its conversion guide for Pathfinder within a couple weeks, iirc, of their Core Rulebook being released and they were not the industry leader at the time, had a much smaller budget and more than a few irons in the fire.



You're saying that Pathfinder had conversion guides for BD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E within a couple of weeks of the Core Rulebook being released?

Because if you're just talking about the conversion guide for 3.5E, that's a ridiculous comparison. The whole point of Pathfinder was to be compatible with 3.5E.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> You're saying that Pathfinder had conversion guides for BD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E within a couple of weeks of the Core Rulebook being released?
> 
> Because if you're just talking about the conversion guide for 3.5E, that's a ridiculous comparison. The whole point of Pathfinder was to be compatible with 3.5E.




Paizo's conversion document was only for 3.5 to Pathfinder, sure, and, at a mere 18 pages (though free, full-colored, professionally laid out and edited), it certainly can't  compare to a full sized book which will detail the minutia of converting back and forth between every edition of Dungeons and Dragons ever published.  Or at least it couldn't if such a book were ever released. 

But then again, Paizo never promised such a document.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (Mar 18, 2015)

I'm impressed by how people can moan about WotC not being open and letting people know what is (or isn't) coming, and then when they do, people accuse them of lying.

They might as well take their time. It is pretty much guaranteed, that when the conversion guide is released, the same people will complain endlessly about how inadequate it is, how WotC once again has messed everything up, and how much better Paizo would have handled it.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 18, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Because that wouldn't matter either.  For a lot of people it STILL wouldn't be enough.  It's NEVER enough.  No matter what WotC does... a segment of populace is going to complain about it and say that WotC is mismanaged, horrible, unable to do the simplest things, yadda yadda yadda.
> 
> They could have said nothing about the docs.  People would complain.  So they give a reason WHY they are late.  People are still complaining because it wasn't "enough".  They could go ahead and add in the couple extra sentences you mentioned in your post, and people would then come back that THAT wasn't enough.
> 
> It's NEVER enough.  Ever.  Some people will find ANY reason to think WotC is horrible and constantly go on about it (here and elsewhere).  It makes me wonder why any of these people even still bother to play the game in the first place when there are some many other companies out there that they probably think are the bees knees and they could play those games and have nothing but sunshine and daisies fly out of their books.  I know I'd love it if all the people who can't help but complain about every single thing WotC does would finally just crap or get off the pot.




I hear you and have also found incessant complaining to be irritating. That said, equalling annoying is vapid fanboyism. I'm not accusing you of this, but just pointing out that there's a possible balance - seeing the lights and darks. My initial remark wasn't as much anger or whining as it was me saying, "Hmm, wow, they managed to do it again. How do they do this?"  



Mark CMG said:


> You're cracking me up, man.  The DMG was late, they're struggling to get other products out that make money with an ever-decreasing staff, and now they're explaining that someone being out on jury duty is delaying a project from last Summer another third of a year.  They aren't working on the OGL, IMO.  They probably don't even have time to have meetings where they think up ways to imply they are while not committing to it.




It is actually mildly worrisome. An image arose in my mind of a ship that is supposed to have a crew of 40 being run by 10 people, running around and just keeping the ship afloat, but not ever able to get ahead or steer the course. I honestly wonder how or even if WotC will be able to come out with anything beyond the planned story arcs, which would be a real shame. But maybe this is how things are going to be for 5E: the core rulebooks and two story arcs a year, and nothing else. GenCon will tell us more, presumably.



billd91 said:


> I have to agree with this. By the time they finally get it out, the number of people who will care will have dropped significantly. For all the decent work they've done with 5e, there are some really odd and frustrating gaps. And this is the latest of them.




Well exactly. "The odd and frustrating gaps" is the problem.



Iosue said:


> Because some guy asked Mearls on Twitter about it, and Mearls, likely not expecting or caring that it would become a huge thread on EN World, answered as best he could in 140 characters.  I imagine he hardly felt he would have to justify the rescheduling of soft plans for release of free material on the website when he had much bigger fish to fry.




True, then he should say that. What are the "bigger fish" and why isn't WotC more forthcoming about that? 



Fergurg said:


> Don't forget, Washington was now of the first states to legalize marijuana.
> 
> Just an observation.




Hmm...interesting.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 18, 2015)

I've got an idea. Let's start a rumor that the real hold-up is due to Hasbro (WOTC's parent) forcing them to produce an entire My Little Pony campaign setting, and it's sucking the life out of virtually every other effort (hence the slow release schedule thus far!) AND that the only conversion they're allowed to do this year will be for Monopoly.

That way people can rage against corporate puppet masters, unresponsive brand managers, bosses who aren't gamers, destroying DnD with non-traditional settings, ruining the rules in general, and I'm sure many, many more.

Either that or WOTC is instead focusing all their energy on a Harry Potter setting, for which there will be no character creation rules and in which you must play one of the existing characters, because that's always so fun (thanks, Indy Jones and Marvel Superheroic RPGs!!).

Let's get it on!


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> I've got an idea. Let's start a rumor that the real hold-up is due to Hasbro (WOTC's parent) forcing them to produce an entire My Little Pony campaign setting



That would actually sell really well.  I know people who would buy that.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> That would actually sell really well.  I know people who would buy that.




That was supposed to be a joke, not a cry for help! 

How about the Care Bears, instead? Or Smurfs?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> That would actually sell really well.  I know people who would buy that.




Its been done. For PFRPG at least

Edit: Looks like there is both a 4e conversion and a 5e conversion


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 18, 2015)

People aren't annoyed because it's late. People are annoyed because Mearls seems to be pulling the wool over our eyes. 

If he said "The guy responsible for it is on Jury duty and it won't be ready for a few months yet" I wouldn't even bat an eyelid. It's the fact he is passing it off as already finished, and just needing final approval, that raises a few eyebrows.

He is either telling the truth or being dishonest, and both of those things are equally as bad. I work on a team of three people, and do you honestly believe that all my work would suddenly just stop for four months? That's the sign of a hopelessly incompetent company if that was the case.
Alternately it's much more likely more than "final approval" is needed on this document, and Mearls is bending the truth, and I really don't like that from him at all.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Its been done. For PFRPG at least
> 
> Edit: Looks like there is both a 4e conversion and a 5e conversion





(barf taste in mouth)


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> (barf taste in mouth)




Hey now - the Kickstarter to get this going was pretty successful. People love their ponies.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Hey now - the Kickstarter to get this going was pretty successful. People love their ponies.



Oh. My. God.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Hey now - the Kickstarter to get this going was pretty successful. People love their ponies.





Pardon me while I go find a place to lay on my side and rock.

"Make the bad man stop...."


----------



## mlund (Mar 18, 2015)

Eh, nobody should be surprised. This is how you adapt when throwing temporary help at a problem isn't a viable resolution (you can't afford it or the ramp-up takes too long, for two examples). If you lose a lynch-pin you redistribute the work however possible and reprioritize it.

The simplest example in this:

Cycle 1:
Employee A is responsible for: A1, B1, C1, D1
Employee B is responsible for: A2, A3, B2, and D2

Employee B is suddenly gone for the cycle.
Employee A is now responsible for: A1, A2, A3, and B1 while B2, C1, D1, and D2 are moved back into the backlog.

It's safe to assume that the "A" and "B" tasks / stories / projects are revenue drivers or blockers for revenue drivers. "D" rank projects are things like free give-aways. When the bottleneck hits the nice-to-haves and give-aways get tossed into the backlog first because otherwise you don't meet your revenue guidelines to the extent that you could have and you ignored the business's prioritization. The latter is a fast-track to getting fired.

The kanban giveth; the kanban taketh away.

Marty Lund


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 18, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> Alternately it's much more likely more than "final approval" is needed on this document, and Mearls is bending the truth, and I really don't like that from him at all.




I may be naive, but I've always seen mearls as a straight shooter.  (I haven't always *liked* what he's said, but I've never found him to be dishonest or deceptive.)


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 18, 2015)

DaveMage said:


> I may be naive, but I've always seen mearls as a straight shooter.  (I haven't always *liked* what he's said, but I've never found him to be dishonest or deceptive.)




I haven't really paid enough attention to determine whether he is a straight shooter or not, however my gut instinct tells me when dealing with the public at large straight shooters don't last too long in positions of PR.

I know for a fact that it would be a huge embarrassment to tell our customers "Hey, that enhancement that we said was coming out last year? It's in final approval but we have a guy on Jury duty so it won't be out for the next four months". They would seriously be wondering wtf kind of micky mouse outfit we are running if we couldn't get approval for something while one guy was away. It doesn't matter if it's free, paid for, or beta (play test), you just don't say things like that. 
Companies also don't work like that, I highly doubt WoTC is any different. If this guy was in charge of getting out something that WoTC considered important, you could bet your bottom dollar that it WOULD be approved, whether after hours or otherwise.

It's all about expectation management. Mearls knows he set the "expectation" that something would be released and now he is trying to stick to that expectation and pass the blame off onto something else. Some people won't care, but to me to comes across as sly. Sure this stuff happens all the time, but don't think your customers are fools.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 18, 2015)

Well, WotC had the idea first unfortunately for them only as an april joke. If they had gone along with this, I predict that it would have outsold real D&D by a huge margin. We likely would not have seen 4e or 5e, but WotC concentratig solely on MLP D20, since this is were the money is.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

They should totally go for it.  Equestria should be the next new campaign setting.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 19, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> People aren't annoyed because it's late. People are annoyed because Mearls seems to be pulling the wool over our eyes.




And I'm annoyed at the folks calling Mearls a liar. Especially over such a low priority product. You people amaze me. It's just mean-spirited conspiracy minded thinking that anyone at WotC would bother lying to you about something so trivial. Or even something actually meaningful. You have absolutely NO basis for that whatsoever. It says more about you than it does about Mearls or WotC.

Argh. I think I need to get away from this thread, it's getting toxic. AND we're discussing Ponyfinder . . . .


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

People distrusting Mearls' message does not come out of no where. If the message about jury duty happened in a vacuum, you would be right. It is not the case however. WotC as a lot of problems credibility when it comes to announcements. Mearls' "You can't cancel what you haven't announce" is part of that problem. Going a few years back, WotC saying 4e's Fortune Cards were not a CCG, even if they clearly were, is another example. 

WotC has a long way to go to win back trust when it comes to its communications.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> They should totally go for it.  Equestria should be the next new campaign setting.




My little girl is 3 & a half and has started watching MLP on Discovery Family or whatever.  I gotta admit there is some great stuff to steal for D&D games.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

JeffB said:


> My little girl is 3 & a half and has started watching MLP on Discovery Family or whatever.  I gotta admit there is some great stuff to steal for D&D games.




Yeah, I'm not a brony by any stretch, but its a surprisingly good show, all things considered. I came pretty close to backing that Kickstarter when it started. For my daughters.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 19, 2015)

Brony


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 19, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> And I'm annoyed at the folks calling Mearls a liar. Especially over such a low priority product. You people amaze me. It's just mean-spirited conspiracy minded thinking that anyone at WotC would bother lying to you about something so trivial. Or even something actually meaningful. You have absolutely NO basis for that whatsoever. It says more about you than it does about Mearls or WotC.
> 
> Argh. I think I need to get away from this thread, it's getting toxic. AND we're discussing Ponyfinder . . . .




Either Mearls is bending the truth, or WoTC is an incompetent company to have business process held up absence of one individual, or its so far down on their care factor list that this is literally what is really happening.

All three of those things do not settle well with me at all.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 19, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> True, then he should say that. What are the "bigger fish" and why isn't WotC more forthcoming about that?



Seriously?  The bigger fish are getting the next season of Encounters off the ground, seeing through the release of PotA, gearing up for the next big project after PotA, various work concerning Sword Coast Legends, attending the GAMA trade show, work concerning any other licensing deals we don't know about yet, signing off on _finished_ material for next months columns, and making sure Greg Tito gets up to speed.  I mean, I know they haven't detailed to us their long term plans, but the D&D website, Facebook, and Twitter have been constantly updating with news, projects, videos, previews of various media such as books and comics, all of which Mearls may not take a personal role in, but as Senior Manager of R&D has some hand in.  



DaveDash said:


> Either Mearls is bending the truth, or WoTC is an incompetent company to have business process held up absence of one individual, or its so far down on their care factor list that this is literally what is really happening.
> 
> All three of those things do not settle well with me at all.



Or maybe, just maybe, one particular low-priority project that was being handled by one person was simply put on the backburner when that person went on jury duty, while all of that person's high priority projects have been re-assigned to the rest of the team.


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 19, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Seriously?  The bigger fish are getting the next season of Encounters off the ground, seeing through the release of PotA, gearing up for the next big project after PotA, various work concerning Sword Coast Legends, attending the GAMA trade show, work concerning any other licensing deals we don't know about yet, signing off on _finished_ material for next months columns, and making sure Greg Tito gets up to speed.  I mean, I know they haven't detailed to us their long term plans, but the D&D website, Facebook, and Twitter have been constantly updating with news, projects, videos, previews of various media such as books and comics, all of which Mearls may not take a personal role in, but as Senior Manager of R&D has some hand in.
> 
> 
> Or maybe, just maybe, one particular low-priority project that was being handled by one person was simply put on the backburner when that person went on jury duty, while all of that person's high priority projects have been re-assigned to the rest of the team.




That's not what Mearls said. If Mearls did say that, I'd be more than happy with that.

Mearl's basically said *it's finished* but.. . I've been working in corporate long enough to know that anytime anyone says "It's finished but" means it's not finished. Do you honestly believe that all this guy needs to do is approve it, and he's not going to do that for the next four months? Really?

Maybe he just said that without really thinking about what he said, and to him "final approvals" means a lot more than it does to me, but I'm skeptical.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 19, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> That's not what Mearls said. If Mearls did say that, I'd be more than happy with that.
> 
> Mearl's basically said *it's finished* but.. . I've been working in corporate long enough to know that anytime anyone says "It's finished but" means it's not finished. Do you honestly believe that all this guy needs to do is approve it, and he's not going to do that for the next four months? Really?
> 
> Maybe he just said that without really thinking about what he said, and to him "final approvals" means a lot more than it does to me, but I'm skeptical.




As a matter of fact, Mearls did _not_ say it was finished.  The actual quote of tweet(s) is:


			
				Mearls on 3/15 said:
			
		

> person who handles final approval is on a jury for a fairly intense trial - out for six months





			
				Mearls on 3/17 said:
			
		

> the person who needs to do the final approvals on them is serving on a jury that will take another 4 or so months. Sorry!




Incidentally, we don't know the nature of their final approval.  If it was just rubber stamp approval, that could easily be given to someone else.  It might be mathematical, as in the person doing the approval is the design team math guru, and its his or her job to double-check the math.  It might be a case of that person being the old edition guru -- these conversion guides are his or her baby and they really want to make sure its good before they send it out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 19, 2015)

They don't need a MLP RPG, they need a MLP CCG!


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They don't need a MLP RPG, they need a MLP CCG!




My girls got that for Christmas, actually.


----------



## weldon (Mar 19, 2015)

Iosue said:


> As a matter of fact, Mearls did _not_ say it was finished…




Thanks for bringing some reason back to this thread. I really don't get the people all upset over Mearls "handling of PR" when he's just making some comments to people on Twitter.  If everyone gets all bent out of shape because 140 characters on a personal account wasn't enough to properly convey a carefully crafted message about corporate policy, what do you think complaining about it is going to produce?

I'll tell you what will happen… Mearls and everyone else will stop talking about D&D on their personal accounts. I personally do not feel that a future where we don't get to interact with the designers about D&D on Twitter and the only information we get is from corporate press releases is preferable.

If you want more information from Wizards, that's fine. Go ahead and ask for it. But please stop with trying to crucify the staff because they aren't using their personal social media accounts to give you every detail of the business.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

Why not make official welcrafted announcements instead?


----------



## weldon (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Why not make official welcrafted announcements instead?




I'm nitpicking a bit, but the "instead" in this sentence is the problem I was pointing out. We *want* the designers to be open and engage with the community on Twitter and other social media. If you also want more direct communication from Wizards about product plans, feel free to ask for it. But that's not an "instead." It should be an "also" because we want both.

I'm certainly not discouraging anyone from talking about Wizards policies or how anyone feels they could improve communication, but let's lay off the criticism of the staff for communication on their personal accounts.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

weldon said:


> I'm certainly not discouraging anyone from talking about Wizards policies or how anyone feels they could improve communication, but let's lay off the criticism of the staff for communication on their personal accounts.



No. They are responsable for what they say. They expose themselves to praise and criticism. Such is public life.


----------



## weldon (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> No. They are responsable for what they say. They expose themselves to praise and criticism. Such is public life.




Of course they are responsible for what they say, but there on some here that want to make them responsible for much, much more than what they've said on their personal accounts. I'm specifically responding to the idea that Mearls is doing a terrible job at PR. I don't think it's fair to look at his pseudo-private direct replies to people on Twitter and make that claim.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

weldon said:


> Of course they are responsible for what they say, but there on some here that want to make them responsible for much, much more than what they've said on their personal accounts. I'm specifically responding to the idea that Mearls is doing a terrible job at PR. I don't think it's fair to look at his pseudo-private direct replies to people on Twitter and make that claim.




I think it is fair and mostly accurate.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> No. They are responsable for what they say. They expose themselves to praise and criticism. Such is public life.




Working as a game designer, or otherwise for a game company, is not "public life".

The best way to make sure you get no information, is to be overly critical when you are given information.  If they are going to be damned for speaking, or damned for not - well, not speaking is really easy.  So, it pays to be a tad gracious and forgiving when they do speak, especially when they are brave enough to speak as individuals, rather than as carefully crafted and impersonal press releases.

We used to get game designers come here to post, and talk with fans.  No more, for much the same reason.  Treating them like they were people who deserved a little respect even if they weren't perfect seems to be beyond us.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 20, 2015)

If only there was a way to get publicity when you wanted publicity and then turn it off when you did not want it.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> No. They are responsable for what they say. They expose themselves to praise and criticism. Such is public life.




You are a horrible person.  I don't need to interact with you anymore.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> You are a horrible person.  I don't need to interact with you anymore.  Have a nice day.




Mother, is that you!?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Working as a game designer, or otherwise for a game company, is not "public life".



Twitter is pretty public. I do agree that the designers were born in the pre-social media age, so that might escape them.



> Treating them like they were people who deserved a little respect even if they weren't perfect seems to be beyond us.



I would like to be respected by Mearls and not be told BS like "what's a cancellation?". To paraphrase, it was pedantic and obnoxious.  But we can't have everything we want in life, now can we?


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> We used to get game designers come here to post, and talk with fans.  No more, for much the same reason.  Treating them like they were people who deserved a little respect even if they weren't perfect seems to be beyond us.




Hard to give respect when they give you the same old corporate BS.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 20, 2015)

Corporate?  Not really- a lot of the people Umbran is talking about were in small companies or solo designers.

Not only that, we had people in the bigger companies who actually used their position to fast-track certain inquiries...  Haven't seen the ones I know of in some time.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Corporate?  Not really- a lot of the people Umbran is talking about were in small companies or solo designers.
> 
> Not only that, we had people in the bigger companies who actually used their position to fast-track certain inquiries...  Haven't seen the ones I know of in some time.




I've heard some people just can't take criticism and take it personally. Every message board is going to have a few A-holes but that's the Internet.  Well I guess they couldn't handle the heat so they got out of the fire.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Hard to give respect when they give you the same old corporate BS.




Actually, it isn't.  We tell ourselves that because we don't want to give it, and want to justify our actions.  Showing respect is as easy as controlling your impulses.  



Sailor Moon said:


> I've heard some people just can't take criticism and take it personally.




Most people can't *give* criticism, either, so there is that.



> Every message board is going to have a few A-holes but that's the Internet.




That's more nonsense rationalization.  As soon as you say, "but that's the internet," you are essentially giving license to the A-holes, by sending the message that you are going to tolerate their behavior.  Thus, the statement becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.



> Well I guess they couldn't handle the heat so they got out of the fire.




Heh.  That is very easy to say when you aren't the one with the blowtorch aimed at you for trying to be nice.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> I've heard some people just can't take criticism and take it personally. Every message board is going to have a few A-holes ....




Talking of that - do you know ForeverSlayer, XunValdorl_of_Kilsek, The Black Ranger, Dominar Rygel XVI, and other exciting banned usernames, or do you all just share a mobile phone and identical opinions and posting styles?


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Actually, it isn't.  We tell ourselves that because we don't want to give it, and want to justify our actions.  Showing respect is as easy as controlling your impulses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I wish I could give this post all the xp, and get certain people to read and comprehend it.

Well said.

The street runs both ways folks...


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Working as a game designer, or otherwise for a game company, is not "public life".
> 
> The best way to make sure you get no information, is to be overly critical when you are given information.  If they are going to be damned for speaking, or damned for not - well, not speaking is really easy.  So, it pays to be a tad gracious and forgiving when they do speak, especially when they are brave enough to speak as individuals, rather than as carefully crafted and impersonal press releases.
> 
> We used to get game designers come here to post, and talk with fans.  No more, for much the same reason.  Treating them like they were people who deserved a little respect even if they weren't perfect seems to be beyond us.





Some still come around and are traditionally some of the biggest supporters and contributors to EN World, though the number is relatively fewer than in the early days.  They might not always be the perfect diplomats but generally speaking their hearts seem in the right place.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Working as a game designer, or otherwise for a game company, is not "public life".




Not in the sense that a politician or celebrity is living a public life and thus isn't subject to the same invasion of privacy, no.

But shouting out the world on Twitter or any other form of social media? That's making a pretty public statement. And while I do think people can take it too far (as I think some posters in this thread are doing), public statements are fodder for public discussion, debate, and public jumping to foolish/wise conclusions. 

If anything, I think this issue helps to highlight how bad social media communication can be. Dropping an excuse why an expected product is late on Twitter, even as an aside to another person? Probably not the best move. While I don't think a press release needs to be carefully crafted for everything, Twitter is just about the worst forum for making that comment that I can think of at this moment. It's witnessable by pretty much everybody and doesn't support a lot of nuanced explanation. In other words, it's fundamentally garbage media - yet, strangely, is being archived by the Library of Congress.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 20, 2015)

billd91 said:


> But shouting out the world on Twitter or any other form of social media? That's making a pretty public statement. And while I do think people can take it too far (as I think some posters in this thread are doing), public statements are fodder for public discussion, debate, and public jumping to foolish/wise conclusions.
> 
> If anything, I think this issue helps to highlight how bad social media communication can be. Dropping an excuse why an expected product is late on Twitter, even as an aside to another person? Probably not the best move. While I don't think a press release needs to be carefully crafted for everything, Twitter is just about the worst forum for making that comment that I can think of at this moment. It's witnessable by pretty much everybody and doesn't support a lot of nuanced explanation. In other words, it's fundamentally garbage media - yet, strangely, is being archived by the Library of Congress.



...which supports Umbran's assertion about damned if you do or don't position.

Twitter ISN'T the best- I hate it, personally, and don't use it (and won't unless forced to)- but it IS one of the big weapons in the typical organization's PR arsenal these days.

Here, the reason for the delay is simple: the person responsible for the final "whatever" on this low-priority product in a small company is unavoidably entangled in doing their civic duty for several months.  No further exposition is necessary.  It may not even be _possible_.  Twitter seems a near perfect vehicle for releasing that tidbit of info because not much else needs or can be said on the matter.

But that isn't enough for some.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...which supports Umbran's assertion about damned if you do or don't position.
> 
> Twitter ISN'T the best- I hate it, personally, and don't use it (and won't unless forced to)- but it IS one of the big weapons in the typical organization's PR arsenal these days.
> 
> ...




No, I have to disagree with Twitter being a near perfect vehicle for that. A much better vehicle is a statement on their own website with links to it posted on Twitter, Facebooks, whatever. I understand that a quick tweet may have seemed a convenient vehicle, but as soon as elaboration is asked for (as I'm sure it has been), it should be obvious that the medium and the message have been insufficient and elaboration is necessary.

I work at a company that makes medical record software (among other applications) and if dates slip for us, it's a priority to get that information out to our customers. The nature of our products makes that more important than RPGs, sure, but there's still a good principle of customer service embedded in there. If you know what products are delayed by jury duty, post the info rather than leak it out. 

And frankly, I don't care if people are going to speculate and grouse no matter what you do - haters are going to hate. You're not going to mollify them. And you can probably not sweat your fanboys and white knights. But I think both groups are minorities. The group you want to keep thinking well of your efforts is the group in between.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2015)

billd91 said:


> But shouting out the world on Twitter or any other form of social media? That's making a pretty public statement.




As is posting on public messageboards, you know.

The Golden Rule should apply.  Treat them like you yourself wish to be treated.  If that person making a public statement can be criticized, then, by extension, our public responses to it are open to criticism as well.  



> And while I do think people can take it too far (as I think some posters in this thread are doing), public statements are fodder for public discussion, debate, and public jumping to foolish/wise conclusions.




You had me up to that last bit about jumping to conclusions.  That's not okay.  It may be common, but goodness forfend someone suggest we, *gasp*,  try to be mindful and improve ourselves a bit!  



> If anything, I think this issue helps to highlight how bad social media communication can be. Dropping an excuse why an expected product is late on Twitter, even as an aside to another person? Probably not the best move.




That may be.  But, is *us* talking about it constructive?  I mean, if you want to drop a letter to WotC about their communication style, that would make sense.  But talking to third parties, and hoping or expecting that to impact WotC is kind of the poster child for passive-aggressive behavior, isn't it?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That may be.  But, is *us* talking about it constructive?  I mean, if you want to drop a letter to WotC about their communication style, that would make sense.  But talking to third parties, and hoping or expecting that to impact WotC is kind of the poster child for passive-aggressive behavior, isn't it?




If you feel that way, you're free to leave the conversation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 20, 2015)

> A much better vehicle is a statement on their own website with links to it posted on Twitter, Facebooks, whatever.




Agreed.

But the problem here is that people aren't complaining about the outlet used, but the actual content and meaning of the message.  The facts were given, cue the outrage.  

Had they remained silent, the outrage would have been just as visible.

Which brings us back to Umbran's point about the surest way for customers to ensure companies don't communicate with them is to beat them up regardless, because non-communication is cheaper in time and real $$$ than communication.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That may be.  But, is *us* talking about it constructive?  I mean, if you want to drop a letter to WotC about their communication style, that would make sense.  But talking to third parties, and hoping or expecting that to impact WotC is kind of the poster child for passive-aggressive behavior, isn't it?




Some of what I've seen here is beyond just passive aggressive and borders on just plain abusive.  I mean, we know that industry people in the past have posted on these boards, and that suggests to me that they still do, but without revealing their identities.  Possibly they just lurk.


----------



## Saxon1974 (Mar 20, 2015)

Anyone know if the DND next adventures will be converted to 5e as part of this?

I have legacy of Icewind dale, the baldurs gate one and ghosts of dragon spear castle. They are unplayable without conversion to 5e. Im about 50% done converting legacy but its slow going as I am strapped for time.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 20, 2015)

Saxon1974 said:


> Anyone know if the DND next adventures will be converted to 5e as part of this?





Has the term "Next" been appropriated to mean something other than 5E?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Has the term "Next" been appropriated to mean something other than 5E?




Yes.  It's been used to imply something  "immediately following in time, order, importance, etc." for some years now.  Possibly prior to the inception of the latest iteration of D&D.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yes.  It's been used to imply something  "immediately following in time, order, importance, etc." for some years now.  Possibly prior to the inception of the latest iteration of D&D.





I think the "N" in the "DND" proceeding the "next" threw me off. 

So, why would the adventures coming out "immediately following in time" from now not already be 5E adventures?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But the problem here is that people aren't complaining about the outlet used, but the actual content and meaning of the message.  The facts were given, cue the outrage.
> 
> ...




The problem with that arguement is that it start with the premise that all the comments made about communications aren't legitimate ones.

It also doesn't take into account WotC's credibility problem.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 21, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Has the term "Next" been appropriated to mean something other than 5E?




It's been used a few times, the current working title of the new Everquest video game is "Everquest Next." I'm sure it will get a real name as it gets closer to release.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 21, 2015)

Saxon1974 said:


> Anyone know if the DND next adventures will be converted to 5e as part of this?
> 
> I have legacy of Icewind dale, the baldurs gate one and ghosts of dragon spear castle. They are unplayable without conversion to 5e. Im about 50% done converting legacy but its slow going as I am strapped for time.




I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "unplayable." ( I've only read Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, though, not the other two. ) I'd be very comfortable myself with running GoDC on the fly, just using Monster Manual stats instead of the playtest ones.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 21, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> It's been used a few times, the current working title of the new Everquest video game is "Everquest Next." I'm sure it will get a real name as it gets closer to release.





Thanks for the info! 

It does evoke something being immediately on the horizon.  Someone should use it for the name of a laxative.


----------



## Saxon1974 (Mar 21, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "unplayable." ( I've only read Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, though, not the other two. ) I'd be very comfortable myself with running GoDC on the fly, just using Monster Manual stats instead of the playtest ones.




Well in legacy some of the encounters are tpk for a level 1-3 party. For example look at the yeti attack at the start, its 2 yetis or more and they are like a cr 3 at least in the monster manual. They are a cr 1 I think in the next rules. If I have to rework encounters then the module isn't that useful and might as just do a home brew.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 21, 2015)

Saxon1974 said:


> Well in legacy some of the encounters are tpk for a level 1-3 party. For example look at the yeti attack at the start, its 2 yetis or more and they are like a cr 3 at least in the monster manual. They are a cr 1 I think in the next rules. If I have to rework encounters then the module isn't that useful and might as just do a home brew.




If the monsters are too different, just use the general stats presented in the adventure. 5e is pretty forgiving that way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The problem with that arguement is that it start with the premise that all the comments made about communications aren't legitimate ones.
> 
> It also doesn't take into account WotC's credibility problem.




Well, those who know me know I'm no apologist for WotC.  I was among the earliest people to criticize elements of the 4Ed rollout, the game itself, their handling of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, how certain material was electronic only, etc. 

 IOW, I agree that they have had a communications & credibility problem, as well as other issues.

THIS, however, seems pretty clear and straightforward.

View attachment 67537


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The problem with that arguement is that it start with the premise that all the comments made about communications aren't legitimate ones.




Nope.  Not at all.

Lots of people will use the excuse that their comments are true, correct, or legitimate as justification for ignoring that their actions have consequences.  But, being right doesn't give you license to be a jerk.  If you have legitimate points to make, they can be made in ways that aren't dogpililng and throwing excessive negativity around.

Basic rule of communication: however legitimate your point is, that point is lost if you don't deliver it properly.  Delivery that makes the recipient stop listening is not useful.



> It also doesn't take into account WotC's credibility problem.




Their credibility problem is not a legitimate excuse for less-than-grand behavior on our part.  

I imagine, in fact, that our overly critical approach to dialog helped *create* that credibility problem.  We have given them a good reason to not feel safe with being entirely open with us.  Anything they say gets ripped apart, and we are unforgiving.  That leads them to avoidance behaviors and having to try to cover their butts and doublethink when they do try to get us information, and that leads to credibility issues.

If you've ever had the thought that others should cut you some slack... well, then you should cut others some slack as well.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, those who know me know I'm no apologist for WotC.  I was among the earliest people to criticize elements of the 4Ed rollout, the game itself, their handling of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, how certain material was electronic only, etc.
> 
> IOW, I agree that they have had a communications & credibility problem, as well as other issues.
> 
> ...




This is just a symptom of a bigger problem. To dismiss it is to dismiss the problem.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> This is just a symptom of a bigger problem. To dismiss it is to dismiss the problem.




What symptom?  WotC's _possibly_ being understaffed?  The reporting of a simple reason for a product's delay?  

Or people's overreaction?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That may be.  But, is *us* talking about it constructive?  I mean, if you want to drop a letter to WotC about their communication style, that would make sense.  But talking to third parties, and hoping or expecting that to impact WotC is kind of the poster child for passive-aggressive behavior, isn't it?



As much as I defend the right to complain, and that it is fair to complain.  This is also totally accurate.

It just isn't realistic for a company to expect differently.

In a perfect world a company will communicate periodically, and also remain aware of unofficial communications which have the appearance of being official.
Then they live up to these communications (or shut down unofficial communications are that misleading).

In an ideal they should manage the communications and achieve the "live up to" part 90% of the time, with good communication of change when needed.

As a real world, they should take the ideal as a goal and see it as on them to improve when they don't achieve it.

Customer ranting is more like a geiger counter.  You can't take anything from the clicks, but the frequency and volume are telling.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 21, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> I'd be very comfortable myself with running GoDC on the fly, just using Monster Manual stats instead of the playtest ones.



 I would not recommend that. E.g. in part 1 there are a lot of lizardfolk to fight. In their playtest incarnation those are AC 12 with 11 hp. If using the final MM stats they become AC 15 with 22 hp. They also gain +1 to hit and deal 5 damage instead of 3 damage over their playtest stats.

Just using MM stats makes GoDC much more deadly


----------



## GlobeOfDankness (Mar 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Nope.  Not at all.
> 
> Lots of people will use the excuse that their comments are true, correct, or legitimate as justification for ignoring that their actions have consequences.  But, being right doesn't give you license to be a jerk.  If you have legitimate points to make, they can be made in ways that aren't dogpililng and throwing excessive negativity around.
> 
> ...




let's not forget that we're talking about a branch of a multi-billion dollar toy corporation here, not exactly some poor victimized indie publisher. the 6 people who actually work on the game probably don't care what's said about the company.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 21, 2015)

GlobeOfDankness said:


> let's not forget that we're talking about a branch of a multi-billion dollar toy corporation here, not exactly some poor victimized indie publisher. the 6 people who actually work on the game probably don't care what's said about the company.





That goes against human nature. Size is independent of feelings.


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Nope.  Not at all.
> 
> Lots of people will use the excuse that their comments are true, correct, or legitimate as justification for ignoring that their actions have consequences.  But, being right doesn't give you license to be a jerk.  If you have legitimate points to make, they can be made in ways that aren't dogpililng and throwing excessive negativity around.
> 
> ...




I would criticise ANY company that took to twitter and made a statement like that.
It almost sounds like Mearls is talking to an annoying acquaintance who keeps nagging him, rather than his customer base.

There is a chasm of difference between what he said, and a more professional statement such as "We've been held up in our release of our conversion material, we understand however that many of you are waiting for this, but our current expected timeframe is roughly four months away".

I don't care if it's WoTC, Apple, or the hair dresser down the street. You don't communicate with your customers like that.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 21, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> I would criticise ANY company that took to twitter and made a statement like that.
> It almost sounds like Mearls is talking to an annoying acquaintance who keeps nagging him, rather than his customer base.
> 
> There is a chasm of difference between what he said, and a more professional statement such as "We've been held up in our release of our conversion material, we understand however that many of you are waiting for this, but our current expected timeframe is roughly four months away".
> ...




I'm perfectly fine with how/what he communicated.

Short, sweet, and I understood all the words he used.

YMMV.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 21, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> IThere is a chasm of difference between what he said, and a more professional statement such as "We've been held up in our release of our conversion material, we understand however that many of you are waiting for this, but our current expected timeframe is roughly four months away".




That's what he said. Except in 140 characters. You don't get eloquence on a microblogging service.



> I don't care if it's WoTC, Apple, or the hair dresser down the street. You don't communicate with your customers like that.




Along with the daily boycotts, this elevation of customer service into customer worship is one of the worst things about the Internet. 

His tweet was just fine.


----------



## DaveDash (Mar 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's what he said. Except in 140 characters. You don't get eloquence on a microblogging service.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you can't get your message across in a tweet properly, then you link to your website where you have a proper statement.

I guess we will agree to disagree, I hold myself to a much higher standard communicating to my customers than this, and my reach is far from as global.

My job is creating software that makes it easier to communicate and socialise with your staff and your customers, and I look at Mearls tweet and consider it a huge waste of social capability.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 21, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> If you can't get your message across in a tweet properly, then you link to your website where you have a proper statement.




That rather redefines the entire concept of microblogging. You may well do that when you tweet, but the world doesn't. 



> I guess we will agree to disagree




Very much so!

If the standards of replying to tweeted questions are elevated to linked pre-prepared PR statements, the world will be a worse place for it.  Even now, WotC is too scared to say anything to anybody ever. This demand just makes it worse.


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 22, 2015)

Mr. Mearls should come to a game forum like ENWorld if he wants to engage in social media with the fans.  Here he could be more eloquent, and it would be a good thing for ENWorld and any other sites he goes to.  Twitter has enough people on it, and it has a reputation for being an open sewer in terms of the level of courtesy and politeness people use in the comments they make there.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 22, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> Mr. Mearls should come to a game forum like ENWorld if he wants to engage in social media with the fans.  Here he could be more eloquent, and it would be a good thing for ENWorld and any other sites he goes to.  Twitter has enough people on it, and it has a reputation for being an open sewer in terms of the level of courtesy and politeness people use in the comments they make there.




he used to be here...a lot of wotc developers where...

I have no proof or evidence why they left, but I have a theory...

My theory is that people are jerks... I don't just mean people here, or on the web, or even any single person on enworld, but overall, we as a people are jerks... and (now specific) they were driven away as WotC was driven to silence because when people aren't happy, they say things like "They should have said X" or "They should have said nothing"


----------



## Wicht (Mar 22, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> he used to be here...a lot of wotc developers where...
> 
> I have no proof or evidence why they left, but I have a theory...
> 
> My theory is that people are jerks... I don't just mean people here, or on the web, or even any single person on enworld, but overall, we as a people are jerks... and (now specific) they were driven away as WotC was driven to silence because when people aren't happy, they say things like "They should have said X" or "They should have said nothing"




I have a different theory. Posting on message boards takes time and busy people find it sometimes difficult to make the time. 

Dealing with jerks is just part of the job if you are going to use messageboards to communicate. Paizo employees still post on messageboards despite jerkiness, but its also part of what is expected of them as part of their job. 

That being said, no doubt rudeness makes it easier to find reasons not to make the time.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 22, 2015)

I think this tweet was fine.  But I also think that track record is important.  (and, fair or not, short term recent track record)
If you have mishandled bad news (before someone jumps on this, yes it is a game, we all care enough to talk about it, there is good news and bad news.  This does not make it on par with childhood cancer) then your audience is going to be less forgiving of the next bad news.

Deliver more good news and your reactions to bad news will be less bad.
Don't botch delivery of good or bad news and reactions to your subsequent non-botched delivery of bad news will be less bad.

Establish a track record of quality and trust.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 22, 2015)

Mearls came on this board sometime last year and explained that the WOTC have only so much bandwidth for social media, and Twitter gives them way more bang for their buck than posting on these boards.  More people get the message, anything they say there trickles over here in short order anyway.


----------



## HobbitFan (Mar 22, 2015)

If Twitter is their microphone for lack of a better word, then perhaps they should be more cognizant of what they say when they step up to the mike.


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 22, 2015)

View attachment 67570


Everyone in my on my other forums, my gaming groups, the FLGS, even in some off topic chat rooms knew about the delay a few hours after it was posted, including those who don't play any sort of D&D - which is actually most of them. So the Twitter communication did just what it was supposed to do. 

EN World was the only place I frequent more often where there was any sort of complaint beyond a few curses in karma's general direction.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> If Twitter is their microphone for lack of a better word, then perhaps they should be more cognizant of what they say when they step up to the mike.




Or perhaps talking casually to fans like they were real people and fellow gamers rather than PR targets is a wonderful social media strategy which reaps benefits, aside from the odd one tweet in a thousand which gets torn apart by ravenous dogs. 

I like that the people who make the games I love are free to engage in casual conversation about them.  We are *so* lucky - when I was playing D&D at college, that was not an option. This oppressive desire to limit and control that normal human interaction is, frankly, depressing. 

So they might misphrase something occasionally. So what? Who cares? They're writing leisure gaming products, not negotiating the end of the Cold War.


----------



## HobbitFan (Mar 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Or perhaps talking casually to fans like they were real people and fellow gamers rather than PR targets is a wonderful social media strategy which reaps benefits, aside from the odd one tweet in a thousand which gets torn apart by ravenous dogs.
> 
> I like that the people who make the games I love are free to engage in casual conversation about them.  We are *so* lucky - when I was playing D&D at college, that was not an option. This oppressive desire to limit and control that normal human interaction is, frankly, depressing.
> 
> So they might misphrase something occasionally. So what? Who cares? They're writing leisure gaming products, not negotiating the end of the Cold War.




I think you might have misintrepreted me or I wasn't clear myself.  I wasn't meaning to say that I wanted WOTC to disavow honesty or clarity in pursuit of santitized PR responses.  
What I was trying to say was that WOTC should consider what they say and the audience they're addressing, just as we should talking to people everyday.  

There's a difference between saying (as I thought I was trying to) "they should think about what they say.." and your take away from what I wrote.  At least in my mind, there seems to be a disconnect between the two.  

We're responsible for what we say.  WOTC is responsible for what they say, as individuals and as an organization.  
And we are all responsible for how we react to what others say.  

Why go on about this?  I wanted to see the open communication, honesty and good will continue from the playtest period into 5E.  
Instead, communication and information has largely dried up, with responses now coming largely as responses to specific narrow questions on social media like twitter.  
They're not talking about their products or their plans.  
That, in part, is why people over-analyze what they (WOTC) do say to the fans.  
If you speak very little, people tend to pick apart what you say.  
Can the audience do better?  Possible...we can certainly try.  And despite the negativity on some threads say on this forum, I think people are hopeful for 5E and rooting for WOTc to succeed.  I am, but I am also a little cynical because of the way 4E went down.  
Could they do better?  I think so but I don't know what's going n behind the scenes with them.


----------



## travathian (Mar 23, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That rather redefines the entire concept of microblogging. You may well do that when you tweet, but the world doesn't.




College student posting about how drunk they got at a party last night? No.  

Companies making an announcement? Uh, yeah?
Sony, Microsoft, CNN, ESPN, Google, Home Depot, Sears, The White House. Check em, many of their posts have links to their parent homepage for more detailed info. They just used URL shrinking websites to create a link that will fit in the character limits of twitter.

Sorry Morrus, but he could have easily said "4 month delay in Conversion Docs. <insert link>" and fit within the concept and real world use of microblogging.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2015)

travathian said:


> Sorry Morrus, but he could have easily said "4 month delay in Conversion Docs. <insert link>" and fit within the concept and real world use of microblogging.




And said link would lead to something along the lines of "product awaiting final approval by person who is unavailable due to jury duty."

Instead, they just skipped that step; saved everyone the time & hassle of following a link that provided the info they contained in a single tweet.



Or do you think there's more to it?  What more would you have them say?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or do you think there's more to it?





The more to it seems to be that just about everyone is focused on whether it is reasonable to expect them to leave it sit four to six months while someone is off at jury duty rather than why the conversion docs weren't developed prior to release with the help of legions of playtesters then released with the Basic rules or in the Fall like they first suggested they would be or in early 2015 like they next suggested they would be.  I can't help but wonder why the focus is on why a fumbled attempt to share information on Twitter seems to be what people find the major problem regarding the conversion document(s).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2015)

True, and I'll get to that.

My question really was more along the lines of why are people focusing on the fact that the reason for the delay was given in a tweet and saying the explanation should have been more fleshed out...when- if the product actually is being delayed for that reason- there really is nothing more to be said.  In fact, they might not have any more info to share than that.  The tweet is sufficient, accurate, and efficient.

Returning to the issue of why conversion documents weren't released as part of the rollout, well...companies are entitled to alter the release dates of their products as need be, and sometimes, they do so for very good reasons.  And they may have had some.

However, I'm one of those who really appreciated the 2Ed=>3Ed conversion document- I have a few, and got good use of them- and thought that one of the major flaws of the 4Ed rollout was the lack of conversion documents.*  So even if they had good reasons for not including such documents in the initial release, I can't help but see that lack as a flaw in the rollout.  They didn't learn the lesson, and have repeated it.

I _suspect_ that the rage over the former is merely venting of frustration based on the facts of the latter.





* That lack, along with the oft-noted directive to simply "start new campaigns" led to some hard feelings and a definite mass of anecdotal evidence that it delayed many players from trying 4Ed out for a long time...for some, ever.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2015)

Ok, I have a question here.  For those who have criticised WOTC in this thread for any of the following:  dishonesty, incompetence, or disingenuousness.

What do you hope to accomplish?

I'm serious.  If you honestly believe, and I have no reason to doubt you, that WOTC is being dishonest when it says that the reason that the conversions docs will be 4 months later is because of jury duty, then what do you hope to accomplish by talking about it?  Do you think they're going to suddenly reverse policy and start saying something else?  What are your expectations?

When a company did something that I felt was dishonest and bothered me, I voted with my feet.  I stopped buying their products and stopped frequenting their websites and stopped talking about them.  I went from someone who would regularly cheer the company to someone who rarely, if ever, actually directly talks about their products.  I am no longer their customer and fair enough.

If you think WOTC is being dishonest, why on earth would you not simply vote with your feet?  It's not like it's 1985 anymore.  There are half a dozen very well supported D&D games out there that are D&D in everything except name.  Pathfinder, 3e, OSR games, you name it.  There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from enjoying D&D and having nothing to do with WOTC.

So, with that in mind, what's the point here?  You think (whoever you happen to be) that WOTC is either dishonest or incompetent.  Thing is, nothing has really changed from WOTC in years.  It's been like this for darn near a decade now.  WOTC has become increasingly tight lipped with fans, never less.  Back in the early Oughts, you'd see all sorts of WOTC people over here talking about the game.  Then that dropped to Scott Rouse.  Now, seeing a WOTC rep over here is like seeing Bigfoot.  Considering these criticisms of dishonestly and incompetence have been coming around and around, generally by the same group of posters, again and again, year after year, at what point do you give it up for a bad idea? 

So, again, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by constant kvetching on the honesty of WOTC announcements?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True, and I'll get to that.
> 
> My question really was more along the lines of why are people focusing on the fact that the reason for the delay was given in a tweet and saying the explanation should have been more fleshed out...when- if the product actually is being delayed for that reason- there really is nothing more to be said.  In fact, they might not have any more info to share than that.  The tweet is sufficient, accurate, and efficient.




Except that, I think, there *should* be more to be said. Are there other products they're planning on selling that are also delayed? What are they doing to alleviate the bottleneck? Are they alleviating the bottleneck on products they'll be selling but leaving the free conversion guide to rest as a lower priority?

I know a lot of people have been saying that issues like jury duty have a pretty big impact on small companies. But the fact is WotC isn't a small company. The D&D team may be pretty small within WotC, but WotC *should* be able to marshal resources to work through most bottleneck issues. If the conversion guide isn't high enough priority to merit that treatment (and, being free, I can see why it might not), it would be nice to hear that it's an exception rather than fuel the idea that everything may be jammed up in the same bottleneck.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 23, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Except that, I think, there *should* be more to be said. Are there other products they're planning on selling that are also delayed? What are they doing to alleviate the bottleneck? Are they alleviating the bottleneck on products they'll be selling but leaving the free conversion guide to rest as a lower priority?
> 
> I know a lot of people have been saying that issues like jury duty have a pretty big impact on small companies. But the fact is WotC isn't a small company. The D&D team may be pretty small within WotC, but WotC *should* be able to marshal resources to work through most bottleneck issues.




You bold the word *should*, but even so I read it and mentally adjust that to the word *could*.

You're right - the D&D team is small, but WotC *could* invest more resources to the department to prevent delays over someone being pulled due to jury duty. But *should*? 

It's clear they've decided from a resource allocation POV that they disagree with you.



billd91 said:


> If the conversion guide isn't high enough priority to merit that treatment (and, being free, I can see why it might not), it would be nice to hear that it's an exception rather than fuel the idea that everything may be jammed up in the same bottleneck.




Sure, it would be nice to hear! But perhaps the fact that they're not saying anything about whether it's an exception or not means that it's _not an exception_.

Personally, I'm not sure what the difference matters. Either it's an exception and they've just back-burnered the conversion guides to get everything else out on time, or they're delaying other unannounced projects as well. Let's say they *had *wanted to put out a FRCS (or MMII, or Elemental Evil player's option book, or whatever) in 2015, but the jury duty situation means it's going to have to be delayed until next year.

What does acknowledging internal delays or cancellations of unannounced projects get them?


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (Mar 23, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> What does acknowledging internal delays or cancellations of unannounced projects get them?




A lot of grief seems to be the answer...


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I have a question here.  For those who have criticised WOTC in this thread for any of the following:  dishonesty, incompetence, or disingenuousness.
> 
> What do you hope to accomplish?
> 
> ...



Your message essentially resonates as "If at first you do not succeed, quit. There is a beer waiting for you in the fridge." Not sure this is how people have managed to change things they care about.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Except that, I think, there *should* be more to be said. Are there other products they're planning on selling that are also delayed? What are they doing to alleviate the bottleneck? Are they alleviating the bottleneck on products they'll be selling but leaving the free conversion guide to rest as a lower priority?




Well that's a communication style issue.  Opinions in PR circles differ as to whether is is best to mitigate bad news with good, or if associating good news with bad is counterproductive.

One thing is clear, though- companies do it both ways.



> I know a lot of people have been saying that issues like jury duty have a pretty big impact on small companies. But the fact is WotC isn't a small company. The D&D team may be pretty small within WotC, but WotC *should* be able to marshal resources to work through most bottleneck issues. If the conversion guide isn't high enough priority to merit that treatment (and, being free, I can see why it might not), it would be nice to hear that it's an exception rather than fuel the idea that everything may be jammed up in the same bottleneck.




Just because WotC is part of a larger whole does not mean they can draw resources from other departments in the company.  Low-priority projects, those that depend on specialized training or skill sets, or that are under the control of specific personnel may not be able to do that at all.  

And it should go without saying that if everyone is busy, there may not be enough hands to reallocate anyway.

I briefly worked at Texas Instruments in their legal department as part of a team of 8 people who were doing important but not time-sensitive work.  There was not a chance in hell of TI reallocating resources to us for a minor slowdown.  Likewise, nobody on that team was going to be subbing for any of the patent attorneys- none of us were licensed to do so.

So WotC has a few hundred employees.  So what?  They're not all game designers.  Do you want Rudy from HR or Sal from accounting or Millie from shipping doing the final approval for the conversion guide?

WotC has a limited number of people doing the work of designing the products for D&D.  Sometimes, the're going to be unable to keep up with the release schedule for any number of reasons. It is what it is.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2015)

billd91 said:


> What are they doing to alleviate the bottleneck? Are they alleviating the bottleneck on products they'll be selling but leaving the free conversion guide to rest as a lower priority?




If you are a customer in close partnership with another company, with money on the line if it doesn't come out at a certain time, some of those internal details may be reasonable to ask for.  But, for retail goods?  You aren't entitled to them.  And that means you aren't really in a good place to be put off for not getting them.  You should be gratified when you do get them, but don't go too far.

Or, to paraphrase Mr. Neil Gaiman, "WotC is not your beyotch."




> I know a lot of people have been saying that issues like jury duty have a pretty big impact on small companies. But the fact is WotC isn't a small company. The D&D team may be pretty small within WotC, but WotC *should* be able to marshal resources to work through most bottleneck issues.




Except when the resource in question has very special knowledge.  Yes, if they need a basic copy editor, or someone with facility with graphic design, sure WotC might be able to dig one up (though, ability to do that may depend on how budgets are structured - sometimes you *can't* just pass resources around). But you can't just conjure up a game designer from elsewhere in the company with sufficient understanding of the game and the business around it to make decisions.  And this was a decision making issue that was said to be the hold up.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Your message essentially resonates as "If at first you do not succeed, quit. There is a beer waiting for you in the fridge." Not sure this is how people have managed to change things they care about.




For some though, it's been about ten or fifteen YEARS of constant bitching about how WOTC handles D&D.  At what point do you give it up as a bad job?  And, again, how do you think posting on message boards is going to change their behaviour?  What's the end goal here?  You bitch long and loud enough and they start caving in to you?  It's been about six years now, around that, that WOTC has taking this position of less and less direct interaction with the fan base through online forums.  Because every single time they do interact, they get dog piled.  Nothing is ever enough.

They state that a product is going to be delayed and give a reason why.  That's not enough, so people accuse them outright of lying or incompetence.  What could they possibly do to announce that this document will be 4 months late?  Do they have to show their time cards?  Do they have to lay out their day planners for your inspection so that you can see that they are busy ("Hey, you took a five minute piss break, back to the sweatshop for you!")?   What?  What would satisfy you?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> They state that a product is going to be delayed and give a reason why.  That's not enough, so people accuse them outright of lying or incompetence.  What could they possibly do to announce that this document will be 4 months late?  Do they have to show their time cards?  Do they have to lay out their day planners for your inspection so that you can see that they are busy ("Hey, you took a five minute piss break, back to the sweatshop for you!")?   What?  What would satisfy you?




I promise you that would not stop people from calling them liers, cheats, dishonest, or just badly working...


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> For some though, it's been about ten or fifteen YEARS of constant bitching about how WOTC handles D&D. At what point do you give it up as a bad job?  And, again, how do you think posting on message boards is going to change their behaviour?  What's the end goal here?  You bitch long and loud enough and they start caving in to you?  It's been about six years now, around that, that WOTC has taking this position of less and less direct interaction with the fan base through online forums.  Because every single time they do interact, they get dog piled.  Nothing is ever enough.
> 
> They state that a product is going to be delayed and give a reason why.  That's not enough, so people accuse them outright of lying or incompetence.  What could they possibly do to announce that this document will be 4 months late?  Do they have to show their time cards?  Do they have to lay out their day planners for your inspection so that you can see that they are busy ("Hey, you took a five minute piss break, back to the sweatshop for you!")?   What?  What would satisfy you?



Such emotivaty. It is almost as if you are WotC.

Anyway, being critical can work with WotC. There were enough critics that they tried to make things more to critical people's liking with Essentials (e.g. auto-hit Magic Missiles). It was a bit late, so they listen to people and had a public playtest for 5e. A lot of old stuff is back thanks to being critical. 

As for the jury thing, yeah, WotC lacks credibility. Saying it was jury duty sounded like the dog ate their homework. It is amateurish PR. It needs to be said or they won't try to improve. The road will be long though. They need a lot of work to regain credibility and good will from fans. It won't happen over night.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Or, to paraphrase Mr. Neil Gaiman, "WotC is not your beyotch."



Nice article.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Or, to paraphrase Mr. Neil Gaiman, "WotC is not your beyotch."




When GRRM releases his next book, everyone griping will rush out to buy it.

When WotC releases something players want, everyone griping will rush out to buy it.

If WotC keeps dropping the ball, some fans might stop griping.  That would actually be bad.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> As for the jury thing, yeah, WotC lacks credibility. Saying it was jury duty sounded like the dog ate their homework. It is amateurish PR. It needs to be said or they won't try to improve. The road will be long though. They need a lot of work to regain credibility and good will from fans. It won't happen over night.




1. WotC does not lack credibility.

2. It was not amateurish PR.

3. Does't need to be said.

4. They still have credibility and good will from the fans.

It appears that we have conflicting opinions.  However, I'm just going to say my piece and be done.  YMMV.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> 1. WotC does not lack credibility.



Sure it does.



> 2. It was not amateurish PR.



Yes, it was.



> 3. Does't need to be said.



What exactly?



> 4. They still have credibility and good will from the fans.



Some fans? Sure. A lot? That is less sure. 



> It appears that we have conflicting opinions.



I blame the internet. 



> However, I'm just going to say my piece and be done.  YMMV.



We work in kilometers here.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 24, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Or, to paraphrase Mr. Neil Gaiman, "WotC is not your beyotch."



Can this become official board policy?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> As for the jury thing, yeah, WotC lacks credibility. Saying it was jury duty sounded like the dog ate their homework. It is amateurish PR.




This is starting to sound like Dave Chappelle's skit about the R. Kelly trial...


----------



## Iosue (Mar 24, 2015)

Incidentally, here's the full jury duty twitter exchange:



			
				Wolf Hunter said:
			
		

> Mike Mearls, Hi! There's a chance you can update us about the writing of the D&D 5e conversion documents?






			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> Wolf Hunter, the person who needs to do the final approvals on them is serving on a jury that will take another 4 or so months. Sorry!






			
				Wolf Hunter said:
			
		

> Mike Mearls, Wow, this was unexpected! But it's ok: is the so-called "force majeure". Waiting a little more is definitely not a problem. ;-)




I'm hard-pressed to call that a failure of communication.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 24, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I'm hard-pressed to call that a failure of communication.




It's fine communication between Mike Mearls and Wolf Hunter. But it's something of an aside as far as D&D team communication to customers who may be interested in that project or waiting for it before they start up a new version of their old campaign.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 24, 2015)

billd91 said:


> It's fine communication between Mike Mearls and Wolf Hunter. But it's something of an aside as far as D&D team communication to customers who may be interested in that project or waiting for it before they start up a new version of their old campaign.




If I'm understanding correctly, you don't seem to have any complaints about how Mearls (or Crawford, Perkins, et al.) handle their personal communications with fans, but are upset with the level of "official" communication from the D&D team. Is that a fair summary?

From what we've seen so far, the only "official" communications regarding projects are release announcements (or article releases i.e. Unearthed Arcana and Sage Advice, but we're not really discussing those here). It's perfectly in keeping with Wizards' behavior so far to not *have* any official communication about the conversion documents until they're ready to release them. Mearls gave the fans a heads up that they'll be a few more months because of the jury duty situation, but from an _official_ standpoint, It's Done When It's Done™. Which is true of _everything_ Wizards' haven't attached an official, publicly announced release date to.

I asked earlier, but only S_Daalsgard bothered answering, so all ask again - for everyone whose criticizing WotC for a "lack of communcation" and asking them to be more forthcoming with project info, *what does acknowledging internal delays or cancellations of unannounced projects get them?*


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2015)

BryonD said:


> If WotC keeps dropping the ball....




Let us be clear - we are not talking about some major product that had loads of hype, and that folks were slathering to buy at this point.  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but this was probably going to be offered *for free*.  Oh, geeze, I may have to wait for that thing that I don't have to pay for!  Cry me a river!

So, sir, I call this a solid First World Problem, and I again raise the note about how we have too high a sense of entitlement, and are overly-critical.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 24, 2015)

WotC is not your beyotch!


----------



## billd91 (Mar 24, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> I asked earlier, but only S_Daalsgard bothered answering, so all ask again - for everyone whose criticizing WotC for a "lack of communcation" and asking them to be more forthcoming with project info, *what does acknowledging internal delays or cancellations of unannounced projects get them?*




Happier and more understanding customers with appropriately set expectations. As I've said, haters are gonna hate but they probably aren't the majority of potential customers. WotC communication won't affect how they feel or what they post. But it *does* affect how the rest of us feel about them. I thought WotC got a lot of well-deserved credit for opening up the design discussion and surveys in the run-up to 5e. I think they handled the delayed release of the DMG reasonably well and, though I don't know what exactly held it up, they set my expectations fairly well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Trickster Spirit said:
> 
> 
> > I asked earlier, but only S_Daalsgard bothered answering, so all ask again - for everyone whose criticizing WotC for a "lack of communcation" and asking them to be more forthcoming with project info, *what does acknowledging internal delays or cancellations of unannounced projects get them?*
> ...



Have you seen this thread?  I have, and find it does not support that assertion in the least.

Instead, I'm reminded of a fable:



> The Scorpion and the Frog
> 
> A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
> scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
> ...


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

You're starting from the premise that the communication was well handled.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 24, 2015)

To everyone still bemoaning WOTC's supposed deceit, evil intentions, incompetence, unresposiveness, stupidity, lack of vision, crappy products, failures, rotten employees, corporatism, poor communications, buggy online products, dearth of PDFs of current books, no new OGL, and otherwise general awfulness....

GET A LIFE! In all the time you've spent throwing verbal bombs via this board you could have come up with a decent conversion system yourself, had people playtest it, and could have started an entirely new board complaining about how it doesn't properly represent the multi-armed gargoyle statue in Tomb of Horrors when you try to covert it to 3.5.

Seriously.

You do realize that all this stuff is made up, right? I mean, if your adult white dragon's attack bonus is off by 1...maybe even 2...the world won't end. Actually, my guess is that your fantasy world won't end, either. I'm certain the real world won't end.

So instead of griping and grousing and making baseless accusations and generally wasting your time being grouchy...GO DO SOMETHING USEFUL, like create a conversion system all yourself. I'd be happy to take part in your field test.

In the meantime, please view this (it is not crude or obscene in any way).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0I63QlYPmQ&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You're starting from the premise that the communication was well handled.




I'm starting from the premise that the only "communication" anyone should expect to get from WotC are release announcements.

A fan asked Mearls a question about the conversion documents and he gave a straight answer. If you were in charge of that communication - you had to answer the question knowing that the conversion documents would be delayed at least a few months - how would you have handled it?


----------



## Halivar (Mar 24, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> GET A LIFE!



As someone who is decidedly _not_ in the group you are deriding, I have to say there is no unoffensive way to take this. In particular, there is no proper usage of the phrase "get a life" that exists in civil society. It's what people on a high horse use to deride the supposedly trivial and petty concerns of lesser people. It's bad, and you shouldn't say it. You have a different set of cares and concerns than the detractors in this thread do, and that's fine; someone somewhere probably thinks they're as petty and deserving of derision as the ones you trivialize here, and just as unjustly.

Your Truly,
A Concerned Netizen


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You're starting from the premise that the communication was well handled.




In this case yes: Mearles answered a direct question directly, succinctly, and sufficiently.  And to the person from whom the question originated.

Said Q&A was then leaked/retweeted, and everyone who cared found out.

Make no mistake: _you_, the customer, _are not entitled to an update or justification for every internal reason for a change in the product schedule._  ESPECIALLY when you were not part of the conversation in the first place. That you found out the reason for the delay was a gift.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Instead, I'm reminded of a fable:




I always liked the one where the Scorpion replies "Because I can swim"


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 24, 2015)

Halivar said:


> As someone who is decidedly _not_ in the group you are deriding, I have to say there is no unoffensive way to take this. In particular, there is no proper usage of the phrase "get a life" that exists in civil society. It's what people on a high horse use to deride the supposedly trivial and petty concerns of lesser people. It's bad, and you shouldn't say it. You have a different set of cares and concerns than the detractors in this thread do, and that's fine; someone somewhere probably thinks they're as petty and deserving of derision as the ones you trivialize here, and just as unjustly.
> 
> Your Truly,
> A Concerned Netizen




Okay, I get it. 

How about "roll for a life"? With a +2 bonus?

Now people can fight over which kind of die.

It's called "a joke," and sometimes jokes poke fun at people and how they behave. Imagine a world with no humor, as we sit silently in fear of ever - ever - stepping on the toes of anyone, in any way. Remember: "joke."


----------



## Tormyr (Mar 24, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> Okay, I get it.
> 
> How about "roll for a life"? With a +2 bonus?
> 
> ...




It would have to be a d20.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 24, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> Okay, I get it.
> 
> How about "roll for a life"? With a +2 bonus?
> 
> ...




The older I get, the more convinced I become that the best jokes to tell in mixed company, and among strangers, are self-deprecating.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> It's called "a joke," and sometimes jokes poke fun at people and how they behave.




And sometimes (actually, often) in flat text, that which is intended as a joke falls very, very flat - maybe you just rolled a 2 on your humor skill check. 

Remember that the audience doesn't get the nuance of tone or body language involved in telling simple jokes, and that without this, the verbiage of a joke looks pretty much the same as an insult.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 24, 2015)

Tormyr said:


> It would have to be a d20.




WHAT???!!

Why not a d30??

That's cruel of you.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 24, 2015)

Wicht said:


> The older I get, the more convinced I become that the best jokes to tell in mixed company, and among strangers, are self-deprecating.




Wicht: I'm going to steal that line - it's a good one.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> I'm starting from the premise that the only "communication" anyone should expect to get from WotC are release announcements.
> 
> A fan asked Mearls a question about the conversion documents and he gave a straight answer. If you were in charge of that communication - you had to answer the question knowing that the conversion documents would be delayed at least a few months - how would you have handled it?



Me? I'm no communication professional. Like Mearls, I do something else for a living. I do know that he tends to over promise* and under deliver.

Mearls announced a conversion document for autumn, fully knowing he is under staff. Heck, the RoT and the DMG's release had to be pushed back. He created expectations that could not be reasonably met. That is not good communications. The same can be said about the OGL and the PDFs. What is happening to those? It is sort of a joke really. The Adventurer's Handbook is another communication blunder we talked about a lot. 

People forgot a bit about the conversion docs, but boom, by answering the tweet he revived those expectations. He didn't give a release date. He just gave an excuse for why they are late (jury duty in autumn too, Mike?). He didn't say they were going to be released in four months. All he said is that the trial will last maybe another four months. Other "jury duties" could happen and the conversion docs could once again be put on the back burner. At some point it could just be cancelled all together. People will be disappointed. 

A better way to handle communications is to stick to what he actually knows will be made. Since I think even the APs can be cancelled, it is indeed probably wise to not talk about the second one that is supposed to come out this year.

Normally I would say that it is a good thing to announce up coming products to create a buzz. I said on these boards that WotC should be more open about their release schedule. It is good marketing. But WotC can't deliver products (free or not) like it use too and may cancel any of them for unknown reasons. Maybe a total radio license is better for WotC right now. No chance of over promising and under delivering again. Set low expectations and try to impress people by meeting those expectations. That is where WotC is right now when it comes to communications. 


*I use the term promise loosely. I'm not saying anything was actually promised, but the saying illustrates WotC problem.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Mearls announced a conversion document for autumn, fully knowing he is under staff. Heck, the RoT and the DMG's release had to be pushed back. He created expectations that could not be reasonably met. That is not good communications.




Well, do we know what looked reasonable to him? 

Here we run into a major question - if Mearls *knew* the dates were bad, and communicated them anyway, then it is poor communications.  If he thought they were good, but they were bad, that is poor planning (or not, sometimes things to pear-shaped even with the best of plans), not poor communications.  Can you state for sure what he thought about the dates?  Are you an internet mind reader?



> He didn't give a release date.




But didn't you just tell us that in giving dates before, it was poor communications?

So, when he give dates it is poor.  He doesn't give dates, he's also in trouble?  See previous statements about being damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

Umbran said:


> But didn't you just tell us that in giving dates before, it was poor communications?



Not exactly. More like a lack of detail because I didn't think nitpicking was going to happen. My main point, that you ignored, is that WotC over promise and under delivers. With the small crew they have, maybe they shouldn't talk about up coming stuff like PDFs, the OGL and conversion docs until those are a done deal. When a product is done and you know it is going to be released, giving a date isn't a bad thing. Like January the 20th he gave the dates for PotA. At that point the AP was going at the printers or the copies were in warehouses*. The PotA could still not be released, but then we are talking of force majeur. Mearls shouldn't be blamed for a fire in a warehouse. 

Um... Well did he call firefighters or did he tweet that there was a fire?


*I assume, of course.


----------



## mlund (Mar 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I always liked the one where the Scorpion replies "Because I can swim"




Yeah, that's a canon L5R (Legend of the Five Rings) thing.

I think the official Scorpion Clan approach to this situation (the "I can swim approach") would be to relentlessly and hypocritically bag on everything anyone in WotC does, just to try and drive down the brand and get your version of the "One True D&D" promoted in its place - either an existing non-WotC published game or some hypothetical edition that would come into being or be re-issued if you could only get the D&D brand shelved or sold off by Hasbro.

But that would be a filthy plotting of an evil Scorpion Clan Courtier character in Rokugan, not the behavior of any real-life person on a message board.

Marty Lund


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 25, 2015)

mlund said:


> Yeah, that's a canon L5R (Legend of the Five Rings) thing.
> 
> I think the official Scorpion Clan approach to this situation (the "I can swim approach") would be to relentlessly and hypocritically bag on everything anyone in WotC does, just to try and drive down the brand and get your version of the "One True D&D" promoted in its place - either an existing non-WotC published game or some hypothetical edition that would come into being or be re-issued if you could only get the D&D brand shelved or sold off by Hasbro.
> 
> ...




Nah, say there was a designer on the WotC team whose work that you did not like, the true Scorpion Clan approach would be to blackmail him into resigning.

Not that *that* could ever happen.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Not exactly. More like a lack of detail because I didn't think nitpicking was going to happen. My main point, that you ignored, is that WotC over promise and under delivers. With the small crew they have, maybe they shouldn't talk about up coming stuff like PDFs, the OGL and conversion docs until those are a done deal. When a product is done and you know it is going to be released, giving a date isn't a bad thing. Like January the 20th he gave the dates for PotA. At that point the AP was going at the printers or the copies were in warehouses*. The PotA could still not be released, but then we are talking of force majeur. Mearls shouldn't be blamed for a fire in a warehouse.
> 
> Um... Well did he call firefighters or did he tweet that there was a fire?
> 
> ...



So your argument is that - and tell me if I haven't got this right - WotC shouldn't announce anything until it has a solid release date - maybe when its a month or two from release?


----------



## mlund (Mar 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Nah, say there was a designer on the WotC team whose work that you did not like, the true Scorpion Clan approach would be to blackmail him into resigning.




True enough. That's only Outer Circle Scorpion scheming, though. The pawns do all the overt dirty-work and crude ops as distractions. Your slanderers, thieves, blackmailers, crime-bosses, loud-mouth courtiers, bravos, and black-pajama patrol operate at that level because that's all they are good for. The *real* ninjas and masterminds of the Scorpion Clan just puppet those guys as false-flags. The classic scorpion meta-scheme is to send a Pawn Scorpion out to champion a position or cause, causing all the other clans to align on the opposite side - the side you really wanted to win all along. (Bonus points if the Pawn Scorpion gets killed in a duel by an angry Matsu or Kakita duelist giving you extra hooks into further plotting.)

The Scorpion Clan - the Rokugani masters of trolling, baiting, straw men, and sock-puppet accounts in a land without any Internet. 

Marty Lund


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 25, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> So your argument is that - and tell me if I haven't got this right - WotC shouldn't announce anything until it has a solid release date - maybe when its a month or two from release?




I'm back tracking from previous comments when I said that they need to be more open about their release schedule. Under normal circumstances, it is what they should do. I under estimated the impact of the small crew they have. Right now they are creating expectations, but have trouble delivering. The comments about the OGL and PDFs are good examples.


----------



## thalmin (Mar 25, 2015)

It is to be noted that WotC is being held to a much higher level of accuracy about release dates than any of the other gaming companies. The much criticized DMG delay was only a couple of weeks, and we were told of the delay about a month out. This for a release date (actual day of the month) that had been announced to retailers several months in advance. For both we had an exact day for the release. With most other companies, we get at best "next month" or "2nd quarter" or maybe "2015", with the actual date maybe announced 1 week in advance. With many companies, we (the retailers) find out on Monday what we will be able to sell on Friday. For some, we know on Tuesday that we will see it on Wednesday. And even some of these get delayed. ("Curt, that game you received this morning? Don't sell it yet. The manufacturer just called to tell us they left out the rule books." Actually happened with several products from different companies, just not always rule books)


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm back tracking from previous comments when I said that they need to be more open about their release schedule. Under normal circumstances, it is what they should do. I under estimated the impact of the small crew they have. Right now they are creating expectations, but have trouble delivering. The comments about the OGL and PDFs are good examples.




And I think that's an entirely reasonable opinion to have - the only caveat I would say is that they haven't actually talked about an OGL or PDFs in months. The last discussion example of someone from WotC discussing either would be Chris Perkins discussing both back in November, and even then he made clear there was no timeline to announce yet.

Maybe I'm just weird, but when I don't hear a timeline get mentioned, my reaction is to go, "Hmm, that's nice", then ignore everything I just heard until more concrete info is announced.

If someone mentioned OGL or PDFs after November though I'd be interested in seeing the quotes though!


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

thalmin said:


> It is to be noted that WotC is being held to a much higher level of accuracy about release dates than any of the other gaming companies. The much criticized DMG delay was only a couple of weeks, and we were told of the delay about a month out. This for a release date (actual day of the month) that had been announced to retailers several months in advance. For both we had an exact day for the release. With most other companies, we get at best "next month" or "2nd quarter" or maybe "2015", with the actual date maybe announced 1 week in advance. With many companies, we (the retailers) find out on Monday what we will be able to sell on Friday. For some, we know on Tuesday that we will see it on Wednesday. And even some of these get delayed. ("Curt, that game you received this morning? Don't sell it yet. The manufacturer just called to tell us they left out the rule books." Actually happened with several products from different companies, just not always rule books)




The savvy consumer has come to realize in this day and age of outsourcing production that there are always hick-ups on the production end, especially when that production is being done in China. Various factors such as Chinese New Years, incompetence, shipping delays, customs, and the like are a constant concern.  Two differences between that, and what is going on here. 1) The communication works best when the publisher is very upfront about what is going on, with a high level of detail. Police Precinct 2nd edition right now is at several months behind schedule, but the company maintains a constant thread on BGG explaining what is going on and what the new dates are expected to be. They get a lot of slack because everyone knows exactly what the issues are. 2) The delays are better received when they are, as in your example, problems on the manufacturer's end. If a publisher sends books off to get made and then the company printing the books takes a month off for Chinese New Years, there's not much that can be done about it by the publisher. If on the other hand, the delay is on the writing, art and layout end, then there tends to be more grumbling. 

Its not a WotC thing, its a dichotomy between in-house and out-of-house delays, and how honest the fans perceive the reasons for the delay to be.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> The savvy consumer has come to realize in this day and age of outsourcing production that there are always hick-ups on the production end, especially when that production is being done in China. Various factors such as Chinese New Years, incompetence, shipping delays, customs, and the like are a constant concern.  Two differences between that, and what is going on here. 1) The communication works best when the publisher is very upfront about what is going on, with a high level of detail. Police Precinct 2nd edition right now is at several months behind schedule, but the company maintains a constant thread on BGG explaining what is going on and what the new dates are expected to be. They get a lot of slack because everyone knows exactly what the issues are. 2) The delays are better received when they are, as in your example, problems on the manufacturer's end. If a publisher sends books off to get made and then the company printing the books takes a month off for Chinese New Years, there's not much that can be done about it by the publisher. If on the other hand, the delay is on the writing, art and layout end, then there tends to be more grumbling.
> 
> Its not a WotC thing, its a dichotomy between in-house and out-of-house delays, and how honest the fans perceive the reasons for the delay to be.




Police Precinct was a Kickstartered product, though - its backers are absolutely entitled to know what's happened to their money. D&D products, on the other hand, are funded solely by WotC. They've not taken anybody's money yet and are under no obligations to share information with anyone but retailers about internal delays or cancelations, whether those are caused by outside forces or the writing, art and layout end of things.

If WotC learns anything from this experience (and I'm not saying they necessarily should, as I largely view bitching on the forums as inconsequential) it's that they shouldn't even vaguely tease products or free releases to the fans ahead of release. Like goldomark has suggested, full radio silence is probably better than staying 95% radio silent.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Police Precinct was a Kickstartered product, though - its backers are absolutely entitled to know what's happened to their money. D&D products, on the other hand, are funded solely by WotC. They've not taken anybody's money yet and are under no obligations to share information with anyone but retailers about internal delays or cancelations, whether those are caused by outside forces or the writing, art and layout end of things.




Sure, but that's beside the point. I was responding to the idea that WotC gets more grief than other companies, and I don't really think that's the case. 

I think it is more fair to say that Companies who obfuscate, or who suffer in-house difficulties get more grief than companies which are pretty upfront about delays and time-tables, or who suffer out-of-house difficulties.  

There are plenty of non-kickstarter games or companies which are pretty upfront with their timetables. I was just using Common Man Games as an example because, 1) it was the first that came to mind, and 2) if I used an RPG company it would be more likely to make certain people get all defensive.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Sure, but that's beside the point. I was responding to the idea that WotC gets more grief than other companies, and I don't really think that's the case.
> 
> I think it is more fair to say that Companies who obfuscate, or who suffer in-house difficulties get more grief than companies which are pretty upfront about delays and time-tables, or who suffer out-of-house difficulties.
> 
> There are plenty of non-kickstarter games or companies which are pretty upfront with their timetables. I was just using Common Man Games as an example because, 1) it was the first that came to mind, and 2) if I used an RPG company it would be more likely to make certain people get all defensive.




I agree, companies facing out-of-house difficulties are definitely more sympathetic than those with in-house difficulties as are companies who are upfront and open about developments. In-house difficulties are why some companies pursue a policy of "radio silence", however - keeping basically everything that's not actual advertising to a bare minimum. There's the old saw about "any publicity is good publicity", but really if they hadn't mentioned conversion documents _at all_ (including canned "We don't have any announcements to make about conversion documents at this time, sorry!" responses to fan inquiries), the documents would still be released at the same time they always would have, only none of us would have ever had this conversation.

I think the two different approaches are just mutually exclusive. You can't maintain radio silence about negative news but share info about good news, because when something negative interferes with earlier good news, you're stuck. When the answer to 95% of fans' cries is "We're a small team with a small budget that can't take on all that much at once, and that includes compensating for unanticipated hiccups", they're better off to just keep quiet about _everything_ until it's time to actually advertise products soon to be on store shelves.


----------



## TrainedMunkey (Mar 25, 2015)

It might be rather "old school" of me, but what happened to having a release schedule and sticking to it. Being held accountable by your superiors if you don't make the release. 

The problem being that your fans lose faith in your product.

Obviously Hasbro bought WoTC for the various licenses, mainly Magic, but it saddens an old Grognard to see D&D not be the focus of a company and not get the attention it deserves.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> And I think that's an entirely reasonable opinion to have - the only caveat I would say is that they haven't actually talked about an OGL or PDFs in months. The last discussion example of someone from WotC discussing either would be Chris Perkins discussing both back in November, and even then he made clear there was no timeline to announce yet.
> 
> Maybe I'm just weird, but when I don't hear a timeline get mentioned, my reaction is to go, "Hmm, that's nice", then ignore everything I just heard until more concrete info is announced.
> 
> If someone mentioned OGL or PDFs after November though I'd be interested in seeing the quotes though!




They still mentioned them and, maybe your above that, but it created expectations. 

I wonder what sort of impact mentioning the OGL had a on micropublishers.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> I think the two different approaches are just mutually exclusive. You can't maintain radio silence about negative news but share info about good news, because when something negative interferes with earlier good news, you're stuck. When the answer to 95% of fans' cries is "We're a small team with a small budget that can't take on all that much at once, and that includes compensating for unanticipated hiccups", they're better off to just keep quiet about _everything_ until it's time to actually advertise products soon to be on store shelves.




So what to conclude?

#1) The best policy is to have a schedule, make it public, stick to it as close to possible, but be open and candid about difficulties.
#2) The second best policy is to have a schedule, but refuse to hardly ever talk about it or make it public
#3) The worst policy is to have a schedule, make it public but refuse to explain why you are not keeping it

I'm not sure I completely agree with #2  being much better than #3 as that means your company drops off the radar somewhat as people aren't anticipating anything from you.  But even by this analysis, WotC is pursuing a suboptimal policy of disclosure at the moment.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

TheWizurd said:


> Obviously Hasbro bought WoTC for the various licenses, mainly Magic, but it saddens an old Grognard to see D&D not be the focus of a company and not get the attention it deserves.




Actually I believe they bought WotC for Pokemon, but Magic has been a proverbial cash cow for them, and hence a rather pleasant bonus. 

And I hear what you are saying about the focus...


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I wonder what sort of impact mentioning the OGL had a on micropublishers.




I can tell you pretty much exactly what impact it had. It created a heightened optimism and sense of expectation, especially among some who received private assurances it was absolutely going to happen. The failure for such a thing to materialize then created disappointment, and a hesitancy among many, if not most, to even touch 5e until an OGL was released. Said failure further compounded the idea, among some, that WotC didn't really want an OGL. 

It also led to the creation of the "My interest in 5e is waning" thread.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They still mentioned them and, maybe your above that, but it created expectations.
> 
> I wonder what sort of impact mentioning the OGL had a on micropublishers.




The thing is, unless it's a formal announcement, and not a tweet or interview, it's worth taking with a grain of salt.  It's not like they're intentionally goading us with promises like George R.R. Martin does.

[sblock]
George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

WotC is not your bitch.

Mearls is not your bitch.

Perkins is not your bitch.
[/sblock]


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They still mentioned them and, maybe your above that, but it created expectations.




You're right of course - though from my own POV, said expectations were "conversion docs will appear in early 2015", and with the new info re: jury duty my expectations are now "conversion docs will appear a few months from now." I _do_ think it would have been better to not mention it in the first place, but when expectations need to be adjusted (either due to changes in circumstances, or said expectations having been faulty the entire time), they need to be adjusted, and I'm not sure I see how Mearls' tweet failed to do that.



Wicht said:


> So what to conclude?
> 
> #1) The best policy is to have a schedule, make it public, stick to it as close to possible, but be open and candid about difficulties.
> #2) The second best policy is to have a schedule, but refuse to hardly ever talk about it or make it public
> ...




In general, I'd agree with your ranking. However, in this particular situation, what I'm concluding is that #1 is optimal _if_ said difficulties are primarily out-of-house - but what if your primary obstacle is "supporting the tabletop line is of secondary concern to WotC, as our primary focus is on the larger brand, i.e. board games, films and video games based on the property"?

In that case, I'd say sticking with #2 _is_ optimal. Flat out saying such will not gain them anything and can only hurt them.

Not saying anything at all might also end up hurting them in the long term, but if they're looking to wean people off of the prodigious product schedule D&D has been synonymous with for the past few editions I can't see a better way to do so than they're already doing.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> In general, I'd agree with your ranking. However, in this particular situation, what I'm concluding is that #1 is optimal _if_ said difficulties are primarily out-of-house - but what if your primary obstacle is "supporting the tabletop line is of secondary concern to WotC, as our primary focus is on the larger brand, i.e. board games, films and video games based on the property"?




Then they should be upfront about their priorities.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Then they should be upfront about their priorities.




Would we all appreciate that? Sure. Would it be beneficial to Wizards? I doubt it.

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say Wizards tomorrow releases a statement saying exactly what I just said. I'm sure they'd put it in more marketing-savvy language and try to spin it as a positive such as "Now D&D is growing beyond just the tabletop game", but the takeaway in so many words would be "we're only going to nominally support the tabletop line with 2-4 releases a year, and focus on making money off the D&D brand name elsewhere".

Would you be more or less likely to give them your money if they did that, vs. if they released no such statement and just put out the same 2-4 tabletop releases a year?

I'm not seeing any upside to them doing so. It won't bring in any _new_ fans, and can only upset the fans they already have.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Would we all appreciate that? Sure. Would it be beneficial to Wizards? I doubt it.
> 
> Hypothetical scenario: Let's say Wizards tomorrow releases a statement saying exactly what I just said. I'm sure they'd put it in more marketing-savvy language and try to spin it as a positive such as "Now D&D is growing beyond just the tabletop game", but the takeaway in so many words would be "we're only going to nominally support the tabletop line with 2-4 releases a year, and focus on making money off the D&D brand name elsewhere".
> 
> ...




But if such fans, according to your hypothetical, are low priority, then lying to them and telling them they are high priority is only going to make them even angrier when they figure out they have been lied to. Likewise, stringing them along with purposeful silence is only going to cause frustration and lead many to suspect they are, in fact, low priority, creating deep resentment. 

No, I have to think that in matters of marketing to a legitimate _fan_ base, honesty is always the best policy. Everything else will eventually burn you and damage your product appeal and reputation.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> But if such fans, according to your hypothetical, are low priority, then lying to them and telling them they are high priority is only going to make them even angrier when they figure out they have been lied to. Likewise, stringing them along with purposeful silence is only going to cause frustration and lead many to suspect they are, in fact, low priority, creating deep resentment.
> 
> No, I have to think that in matters of marketing to a legitimate _fan_ base, honesty is always the best policy. Everything else will eventually burn you and damage your product appeal and reputation.




Do you think there will be a sudden uproar in 2016 when the fans suddenly realize they've been hoodwinked into playing a game with a light release schedule? Far more likely that fans not satisfied with the level of support the game is receiving simply leave the game for other RPGs whose support levels are more to their tastes, and be replaced by new players who don't have any preconceived notions of the level of support the game should see. I really can't envision any scenario where fans are "deeply resentful" of WotC not putting out conversion documents or other releases on a faster time table, at least not one where WotC is legitimately deserving of said resentment.

And what lies about fans being a high priority are being told on WotC's behalf? They said they were going to put out the core books. They did. Then they said they were going to put out adventure paths. They did. The first two of those weren't well received, but they were being written while the ruleset was still in flux and the third one seems to be much, much better. They said they were going to put out conversion docs in early 2015, and now are saying they'll have to delay them because of a member of the team being out for jury duty. Are you saying that's a lie of omission? That's subjective - just because they've decided it makes better business sense to scale down the pen-and-paper team to put out less product doesn't mean they have to announce to the heavens that the fans are a "low priority".


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> And what lies about fans being a high priority are being told on WotC's behalf? They said they were going to put out the core books. They did. Then they said they were going to put out adventure paths. They did. The first two of those weren't well received, but they were being written while the ruleset was still in flux and the third one seems to be much, much better. They said they were going to put out conversion docs in early 2015, and now are saying they'll have to delay them because of a member of the team being out for jury duty. Are you saying that's a lie of omission? That's subjective - just because they've decided it makes better business sense to scale down the pen-and-paper team to put out less product doesn't mean they have to announce to the heavens that the fans are a "low priority".




Don't put words in my mouth.  I was addressing your hypothetical only. It was your hypothetical which suggested that the company might tell players they were low priority, or else keep silent and let them figure it out for themselves. Its not quite cricket to suggest a hypothetical and then start arguing with someone as if the suggestions were theirs. 

My position was that current communication seems sub-optimal, and that full disclosure of an actual production schedule and reasons for potential delays is the optimal way of doing things. I have no opinion on the release schedule itself, or at least not one relevant to the discussion at hand.  



> . I really can't envision any scenario where fans are "deeply resentful" of WotC not putting out conversion documents or other releases on a faster time table, at least not one where WotC is legitimately deserving of said resentment.




You are conflating. 

The resentment in question would not be caused by the slow release, but by the many excuses made for said slow release, or, more likely, the feeling that lies are being told as to the reason for the slow release. People are generally fairly forgiving of problems of schedule but less forgiving of a lack of clarity as to the real reasons for the problems. (Thus my postulating above that Wizards is not actually an exception to how other companies are treated). To borrow a phrase, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. If there are problems, tell people about it as it happens, and, generally speaking, they will appreciate the candor.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 25, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> The thing is, unless it's a formal announcement, and not a tweet or interview, it's worth taking with a grain of salt.  It's not like they're intentionally goading us with promises like George R.R. Martin does.
> 
> [sblock]
> George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.
> ...



What constitute a formal announcement anyway? Perkins made that statement at a Con during a seminar. It certainly more formal than twitter and more official, as he was there to represent WotC. 

Now the "WotC is not my bitch" incantation is cute, but I'm not WotC's bitch either. Dangling stuff in front of me and taking it away is not very respectful.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Don't put words in my mouth.  I was addressing your hypothetical only. It was your hypothetical which suggested that the company might tell players they were low priority, or else keep silent and let them figure it out for themselves. Its not quite cricket to suggest a hypothetical and then start arguing with someone as if the suggestions were theirs.
> 
> My position was that current communication seems sub-optimal, and that full disclosure of an actual production schedule and reasons for potential delays is the optimal way of doing things. I have no opinion on the release schedule itself, or at least not one relevant to the discussion at hand.




"Lying" wasn't in either scenario of the hypothetical though, at least not in how I was interpreting it when I created it. One was announcing their focus on non-tabletop components of the brand, while the other was simply focusing on said components while not calling attention to it. In neither scenario did I envision falsehood - not announcing you won't be investing many resources to your tabletop division doesn't really constitute "lying to them and telling them they are high priority" in my view, hence the confusion. 

My apologies if my hyperbole  left a nasty flavor on your tastebuds, however. 



Wicht said:


> You are conflating.
> 
> The resentment in question would not be caused by the slow release, but by the many excuses made for said slow release, or, more likely, the feeling that lies are being told as to the reason for the slow release. People are generally fairly forgiving of problems of schedule but less forgiving of a lack of clarity as to the real reasons for the problems. (Thus my postulating above that Wizards is not actually an exception to how other companies are treated). To borrow a phrase, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. If there are problems, tell people about it as it happens, and, generally speaking, they will appreciate the candor.




Right, I noticed those threads were crossing while I was writing my response, but I think they're related because I think the issue at hand is the size of the D&D team - if the team was larger (i.e. intended to put out more products), than they'd be able to mitigate delays due to unexpected jury duty pulls and other obstacles. Unfortunately, the team is clearly small enough that things like that _are_ an issue for them.

I agree with your point that cover-ups are worse than the crime, and that clear communication generally leads to people being fairly forgiving of problems in general. I'm still of the opinion however that if the problem is "we only have a small team with a small budget and therefore can't shuffle employees around to deal with unanticipated issues when they arise" - and I do believe that that is the _actual_ source of the problem - than they're better off maintaining a radio silence policy. 

Just look at some of the threads on ENWorld right now. They'd have to deal with an endless torrent of fans asking "why?" and "how come you can't just increase the size of the team?". There's no answer to those questions that will satisfy their critics.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> What constitute a formal announcement anyway? Perkins made that statement at a Con during a seminar. It certainly more formal than twitter and more official, as he was there to represent WotC.
> 
> Now the "WotC is not my bitch" incantation is cute, but I'm not WotC's bitch either. Dangling stuff in front of me and taking it away is not very respectful.




Well, I'd agree that a con appearance is more official than Twitter comments, but saying "we'd like to do X but don't know when we'll get around to it" isn't exactly a formal announcement, you know?

And with respect to the conversion documents being dangled in front of you and taken away - yeah it sucks, but what would you have done in their place, pull people off of other projects to work on the conversion documents instead? I'm not saying that I _wouldn't_ do that if I were in Mearls' place, but just pointing out that Mearls actually knows what everyone is working out and may be quite justified in delaying a couple of free PDFs in favor of whatever's in the pipeline.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> "Lying" wasn't in either scenario of the hypothetical though, at least not in how I was interpreting it when I created it.



Misdirection of priorities is a sort of a lie. Lies by omission to create a certain impression can backfire just as readily as more obvious lies.



> I agree with your point that cover-ups are worse than the crime, and that clear communication generally leads to people being fairly forgiving of problems in general. I'm still of the opinion however that if the problem is "we only have a small team with a small budget and therefore can't shuffle employees around to deal with unanticipated issues when they arise" - and I do believe that that is the _actual_ source of the problem - than they're better off maintaining a radio silence policy.
> 
> Just look at some of the threads on ENWorld right now. They'd have to deal with an endless torrent of fans asking "why?" and "how come you can't just increase the size of the team?". There's no answer to those questions that will satisfy their critics.




If the size of the team is the problem, then the polite way of framing it, on their end, is, "We over-estimated what we would be able to handle with the resources available to us." Nothing more needs to be said. Its an honest, candid answer that everyone would understand. 

Likewise, when people ask "why not increase the size of the team," the polite response is, "That is outside of my control."

I disagree that people would not accept these responses. They would be understood, and while WotC as a company would get some grief over not putting more resources in, nobody would blame the actual team, and, moreover, they would not have said anything inpolitic or inappropriate about their employers.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Well, I'd agree that a con appearance is more official than Twitter comments, but saying "we'd like to do X but don't know when we'll get around to it" isn't exactly a formal announcement, you know?



And this is why these announcements are problematic. Do them only when they are a done deal. 



> And with respect to the conversion documents being dangled in front of you and taken away - yeah it sucks, but what would you have done in their place, pull people off of other projects to work on the conversion documents instead?



Have realistic expecations of the work my team can produce and not announce it for autumn. Back then there was no jury duty. The delay of the conversion docs aren't only due to jury duty. That is just the excuse he is using now. What was it back then? What will it be next?


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> What constitute a formal announcement anyway? Perkins made that statement at a Con during a seminar. It certainly more formal than twitter and more official, as he was there to represent WotC.
> 
> Now the "WotC is not my bitch" incantation is cute, but I'm not WotC's bitch either. Dangling stuff in front of me and taking it away is not very respectful.




There's a certain quality to something official.  Like anything posted here or here or here:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles

http://company.wizards.com/press

https://dnd.wizards.com/elemental-evil

Would be announcements.  

These would not be WotC announcements:

http://www.denofgeek.com/books-comi...geons-dragons-the-sundering-and-shared-worlds

http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...Return!-And-Other-Short-Stories!#.VRKwrvnF-xU

https://twitter.com/

http://www.enworld.org/

But they might link to WotC announcements.  

Don't take it as an announcement unless it actually appears on the WotC website itself.

The thing about you being WotC's bitch.....  If you want to discuss that, PM me.  Maybe it will foster enough discussion to make a *different* thread about.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Misdirection of priorities is a sort of a lie. Lies by omission to create a certain impression can backfire just as readily as more obvious lies.




What "certain impression"? I'll repeat my earlier point: 



Trickster Spirit said:


> Are you saying that's a lie of omission? That's subjective - just because they've decided it makes better business sense to scale down the pen-and-paper team to put out less product doesn't mean they have to announce to the heavens that the fans are a "low priority".






Wicht said:


> If the size of the team is the problem, then the polite way of framing it, on their end, is, "We over-estimated what we would be able to handle with the resources available to us." Nothing more needs to be said. Its an honest, candid answer that everyone would understand.
> 
> Likewise, when people ask "why not increase the size of the team," the polite response is, "That is outside of my control."
> 
> I disagree that people would not accept these responses. They would be understood, and while WotC as a company would get some grief over not putting more resources in, nobody would blame the actual team, and, moreover, they would not have said anything inpolitic or inappropriate about their employers.




Respectfully, that's how it would go over if people on the internet were reasonable. Instead it would immediately turn into multiple 50+ threads about how Wizards is running D&D into the ground and not giving it the attention it deserves.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 25, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> There's a certain quality to something official.  Like anything posted here or here or here:
> 
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles
> 
> ...




While reading the Perkins interview I saw this: "While I can’t comment on products that have not released [...]". Made me laugh a bit.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> What "certain impression"? I'll repeat my earlier point:




If, under your hypothetical, a company tried to give the impression, via silence and omission, that a certain set of customers were its primary focus, when in fact they were not, that would be a kind of deception, and it would backfire.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> If, under your hypothetical, a company tried to give the impression, via silence and omission, that a certain set of customers were its primary focus, when in fact they were not, that would be a kind of deception, and it would backfire.




Strictly speaking this is of course true, but now we're debating what exactly qualifies as trying to "give the impression that a certain set of customers were its primary focus". Does simply continuing to sell them products while viewing other parts of the brand as more profitable constitute a lie of omission?

We're leaving the bounds of my hypothetical here, as I truly do think that Wizards has shifted their focus to the larger brand. Hasbro has waded into court over the D&D movie rights and they're promoting Sword Coast Legends and MMO expansions as heavily as they are the adventure paths. I think the tabletop game is still important - it's the brand's heart, the common thread that ties it all together and gives everyone a point of reference - but it's not where their business lies. With the exception of the conversion documents we've been talking about, WotC hasn't said _anything_ to imply they're working on anything other than biannual adventure paths.

So what constitutes giving us, a certain set of their customers, the impression that we're their primary focus? Wizards is selling individual products, not a subscription or a service. You either like a product they've produced and will buy it, or not. I've not seen them do anything intentionally misleading to date, and don't think that them going out of their way to rub their tabletop audience's nose in the fact that we're small potatoes next to all that Hollywood and video game money is beneficial to WotC or desirable to us.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2015)

Personally, I think the upshot of this is there will always be a segment of the fandom that will protest no matter what WOTC does.  "This twenty dollar bill is folded entirely wrong!"


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 25, 2015)

TheWizurd said:


> It might be rather "old school" of me, but what happened to having a release schedule and sticking to it. Being held accountable by your superiors if you don't make the release.




I know that TSR used to produce a yearly release schedule for their products.  And they had a lot of products!


----------



## JeffB (Mar 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I know that TSR used to produce a yearly release schedule for their products.  And they had a lot of products!





And Dragon magazine had it in every issue about upcoming products. 

:ramble:

But different times and different business model. Tabletop D&D is no longer where the money  is with the property. And it is showing in how tabletop D&D is being handled. Skeleton crew who have issues getting things out that 5 years ago were produced with ease every month or even week, very few products that also farmed out to 3rd parties,  very little frequency of  communication with fans and what there is weird..Twitter..and a DM roundtable which used to be served by a website article. Around the time Jon $chindiwhatsit got canned, things started getting weird. The branding iron thrown around alot, and then James Wyatt taking off to novels or whatever , Mearls'  got quieter,  and I felt there was some kind of shift in how WOTC was interacting with us, period. I personally feel there was some kind of wrench thrown into business plans.  Only cos I have had those kind of experiences before working for big money companies. That's my gut.

My personal feeling is that this is the last hurrah for D&D tabletop...at least under HABRO/WOTC. In the grand scheme of things tabletop D&D Is peanuts and a dinosaur.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Personally, I think the upshot of this is there will always be a segment of the fandom that will protest no matter what WOTC does.  "This twenty dollar bill is folded entirely wrong!"




And there are those who will always praise WotC, no matter it does. It could sell poop in boxes and it would be the best product ever.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 26, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> So what constitutes giving us, a certain set of their customers, the impression that we're their primary focus?




Again, I never said they had.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Personally, I think the upshot of this is there will always be a segment of the fandom that will protest no matter what WOTC does.  "This twenty dollar bill is folded entirely wrong!"




Ha, I was charged $50 for that $20 bill.  The least they could do is fold it properly!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 26, 2015)

goldomark said:


> And there are those who will always praise WotC, no matter it does. It could sell poop in boxes and it would be the best product ever.




Really?

Who is praising WOTC here?  How many people have come up and said, "Good for WOTC for not talking to us"?  

The only thing that is being said, is that we're not terribly bothered by the lack of communication.  It would be nice to get more, but, it doesn't faze me in the slightest.  I barely paid attention when they DID talk.  I simply don't care.

But, what you don't see is the "praisers" jumping into multiple threads to jump up and down and complain about how WOTC is handling things.  We leave that to you, Goldomark.  You keep right on preaching it brother.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm certainly not praising them for not communicating, but I understand why they wouldn't.  I'm also more than a little perturbed by the level of vitriol that's been displayed on this board.  It's a wonder that they're any more communicative than a brick wall given the typical response they seem to get.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I'm certainly not praising them for not communicating, but I understand why they wouldn't.  I'm also more than a little perturbed by the level of vitriol that's been displayed on this board.  It's a wonder that they're any more communicative than a brick wall given the typical response they seem to get.




Level of vitriol?  You are kidding, right?


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Level of vitriol?  You are kidding, right?




Not in the least.  It's been really nasty over the last 3 months or so.  A little better over the last week though.  I daren't think what twitter must be like.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Really?



Yes.



> Who is praising WOTC here?  How many people have come up and said, "Good for WOTC for not talking to us"?



More than a few. There are more than a few who praise the current release schedule too. But that is besides the point. 

Saying people are just complainers or sycophants is just a personal attack and is not a valid argument to defend any position. 



> The only thing that is being said, is that we're not terribly bothered by the lack of communication.  It would be nice to get more, but, it doesn't faze me in the slightest.  I barely paid attention when they DID talk.  I simply don't care.



You'd be surprise to find out there are other people in the world besides yourself. But I wasn't talking about you specifically. Were you attacking me without naming me?



> But, what you don't see is the "praisers" jumping into multiple threads to jump up and down and complain about how WOTC is handling things.



Indeed. They jump in a thread to defend WotC. The nuance is important. But who cares? Those are just personal attacks. Attack the arguments, not the people.



> We leave that to you, Goldomark.  You keep right on preaching it brother.



How does it go in English? A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country? Nerdlandia, when will you truly hear and understand my prophecies? You call me mad, but you'll see! You will all see!


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> Not in the least.  It's been really nasty over the last 3 months or so.  A little better over the last week though.  I daren't think what twitter must be like.




I hope that you at least reported the offenders so the mods can take the appropriate action.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Those are just personal attacks. Attack the arguments, not the people.





Both sides have addressed the arguments, not the people, for quite some time.  Nobody seems to be budging, nobody acknowledges truth in what those with other opinions say.

Which is to say, folks are butting heads, rather than trying to discuss.  There is not real exchange of ideas going on, as opposing ideas are not being accepted.

Which means the thread is now of limited usefulness.  How about we enforce an agreement to disagree by closing the thread?


----------

