# Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Chris Dias of Dias Ex Machina Games writes an open letter to Wotc concerning things they could do to help 4e 3pp.

Some thoughts...
1) I've wondered for a number of years why WotC doesn't do some of these things already. They just seem like good synergy.

2) I wouldn't hold my breath for WotC to respond in any meaningful way. Too many cooks in that kitchen, in my opinion, for there to be real, swift change for the better in the way 3pp are treated.

3) There really is no debate, as Mr. Dias observes, from the 3pp point of view, of which company (WotC or Paizo) is more profitable (and enjoyable) to partner with.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Mar 8, 2011)

The only thing astonishing in this letter is that Mr. Dias is the sole signer. I assume that his points are valid for other 3pp as well, but it sounds like there is no organisation or unity whatsoever. Which, in turn, might be one more reason why all this remains unheard in Seattle.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Mar 8, 2011)

Jan, do you really think, if a letter were co-signed by a few hundred people, it would get any more attention at Wizards of the Coast?


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Mar 8, 2011)

Perhaps. I see this Open Letter more as a statement to the gamers than one directed at WotC, but still, a joint effort by the 3pps might have more impact.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Perhaps. I see this Open Letter more as a statement to the gamers than one directed at WotC, but still, a joint effort by the 3pps might have more impact.




Honest question, because I really don't know, but how many 4e 3pp are left? Goodman was, I thought the main one on the field, but they are focusing elsewhere now, and moving further from being as gung-ho for 4e (though they claim they'll still be doing 4e adventures.)


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

Jan van Leyden said:


> The only thing astonishing in this letter is that Mr. Dias is the sole signer.




Well, I'm not signing it because I don't agree. I enjoy having almost no competition.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Well, I'm not signing it because I don't agree. I enjoy having almost no competition.




I can't help but think thats a little shortsighted. No competition implies a rather lackluster market. Lots of competition, conversely, implies that the market is thriving.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

That's not necessarily true, at all, Wicht. Furthermore, I can't help but feel the open letter is more about whining than anything else. In it, he speaks about what WotC isn't doing for him in regards to support. It reads as though he doesn't want to do anything for himself, and how another, larger, organization should do the work for him. Perhaps he should focus on what _he_ isn't doing, rather than WotC. There are plenty of 3rd-party publishers that do not use the GSL, and successfully produce 4e content.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicht said:


> I can't help but think thats a little shortsighted. No competition implies a rather lackluster market. Lots of competition, conversely, implies that the market is thriving.




A large slice of a small pie is better than a tiny slice of an enormous pie.

Trust me, I went through the d20 glut. It wasn't pretty.

If could have one wish, though, it would be that the CB allowed for third-party content, as that is a pretty large barrier to selling your product. Thee are a lot of people now who won't use stuff if it won't work in the CB.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> That's not necessarily true, at all, Wicht. Furthermore, I can't help but feel the open letter is more about whining than anything else. In it, he speaks about what WotC isn't doing for him in regards to support. It reads as though he doesn't want to do anything for himself, and how another, larger, organization should do the work for him. Perhaps he should focus on what _he_ isn't doing, rather than WotC. There are plenty of 3rd-party publishers that do not use the GSL, and successfully produce 4e content.




I do freelance work in the PFRPG market, so maybe we're just spoiled by the wonderful way Paizo treats us, but every single thing he was asking for seemed very reasonable to me because it is almost exactly what Paizo does. So it didn't seem too much like whining to me. 

Synergy and cooperation works, even in the marketplace. If you haven't already, check out Pathways, Rites new free e'zine. Read the interview with the 3pps and consider what this represents: One publisher (Rite) giving free advertising to the competition and in the process all of them praising another company (Paizo) for the wonderful way they can work together. I actually think thats a good thing and honestly wish that WotC was doing the same thing.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

How are they not cooperating? Can you provide me specific examples of what is needed/required?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Synergy and cooperation works, even in the marketplace. If you haven't already, check out Pathways, Rites new free e'zine. Read the interview with the 3pps and consider what this represents: One publisher (Rite) giving free advertising to the competition and in the process all of them praising another company (Paizo) for the wonderful way they can work together. I actually think thats a good thing and honestly wish that WotC was doing the same thing.




That exists right here on EN World, 24/7, on a large scale. The fact that it's not WotC doing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  For example - free daily news updates about _any_ publisher's work.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> How are they not cooperating? Can you provide me specific examples of what is needed/required?




WotC mentioning the products of 3pp on their website would be a nice start, imo.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> That exists right here on EN World, 24/7, on a large scale. The fact that it's not WotC doing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  For example - free daily news updates about _any_ publisher's work.




And I appreciate it too. Thank you. 


But it would still be nice of WotC would toss a bone every now and then. YMMV.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicht, 

I don't feel like you and I are disagreeing completely. However, the open letter referenced in this thread reads more like a sense of entitlement than anything else. The author expects WotC to do all of this and demonizes them in the same breath. It's entirely too easy for people to write letters like this and get nothing but attaboys from the community. It's pandering to a crowd that will gladly "damn the man".


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Wicht,
> 
> I don't feel like you and I are disagreeing completely. However, the open letter referenced in this thread reads more like a sense of entitlement than anything else. The author expects WotC to do all of this and demonizes them in the same breath. It's entirely too easy for people to write letters like this and get nothing but attaboys from the community. It's pandering to a crowd that will gladly "damn the man".




I'm not interested in "damn the man."  And I don't agree with every point in his article, but at the same time, I agree with the idea of it.

You call it whining, and I call it justified frustration.  WotC's support for 3pp is almost non-existent.  And I would say what they have is ANTI support in place, to be honest.  They have left that community to completely fend for itself in a market where their direct competition is getting waves of support from Paizo.

I believe that the GSL was just a stalling tactic used to wind down any and all 3rd party publishing associated with "D&D", and that it worked.  I am glad that there are a few people left hanging on and dealing with this environment to put out terrific products.

If WotC WANTS 3pp support, then they need to do something, anything to give a nod to them, to link the community and shape it.

From where I'm sitting, they are doing what they can to drive it away instead, intentionally.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

You realize you can publish content without the GSL, right? Open Design/Kobold Quarterly is the biggest example. You need to provide examples of how they are actively acting against 3rd-party publishers if you are going to make that claim. Your red herring is not in any way contributing to the debate.


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> You realize you can publish content without the GSL, right? Open Design/Kobold Quarterly is the biggest example. You need to provide examples of how they are actively acting against 3rd-party publishers if you are going to make that claim. Your red herring is not in any way contributing to the debate.




I don't see how a suggestion to publish material outside the GSL is a fair suggestion to publishers who are wanting support from WotC.  In fact, it is explicitly abandoning the support and opening yourself up to legal complications as well as an even thinner tight-rope of what you are and aren't allowed to do.  At least the GSL explicitly gives you guidelines of what will not incur the wrath of the WotC lawyers.  (IANAL)

And this is, at least, is NOT a red herring.  Many community sites were sent Cease and Desist letters following 4e's launch.



As to how I feel that WotC actually wants to discourage 3pp support?  Again, I won't bring up publishing outside of WotC's licenses, as doing that is very clearly choosing to NOT be involved in WotC's support system.

1) The initial launch of the GSL was delayed so much that even the groups that would have payed for the 'early access' to the GSL ($5k) were not going to get it in time to have product ready at launch under the GSL.  This is one of the main reasons that Pathfinder the game even exists.  

You can follow Paizo's own blog posts on their site before the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG to see the role that the continued delay of receiving the GSL led to their decision to not support 4e.

2) WotC's requirement to reference their books product in the GSL meant that publishers material would become quickly out of date as 4e products have been subject to extremely heavy errata and revision, relying on DDI to an extreme.

3) WotC's push of DDI as /the/ way to play 4e, and at the same time locking out any 3rd party support of what they consider their most important product.

4) The GSL poison pill.  While it got removed months after 4e's launch, it left publishers having to choose to abandon their old product / d20 or support 4e.  BUT the ability to support 4e at all was delayed by the late release of the GSL.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Perram,

I'm sorry man, but you keep using argument fallacies in an attempt to derail the original topic. If you want to have a discussion about DDI, let's open another thread. Furthermore, you keep pushing back to the GSL as another pillar of your argument, and fail to acknowledge that it is not what's holding anyone back. As it relates to the OGL (3.x), there is no other choice other than to be open and accepting--the license specifically lays all of this out. It is not some great gift to society from Paizo--they are following the license as well. 

Can you point me to a specific 4e product that was revoked by WotC, or challenged by their legal staff? The CnD notification you speak of, were directly related to sites that were syphoning WotC's IP and repackaging it. Some of the sites adapted, others shut down. Let's go through your points.

1) GSL is not required. Problem solved. Unless you are specifically using images or content contained within the GSL, you are free to use it or not. This is how other 3rd-party publishers have largely adapted. 

2) Means nothing when considering point #1

3) DDI has nothing to do with the GSL. You are trying to use additional argument fallacies to prove a point that doesn't exist. Or, in the very least, trying to stretch a point.

4) Not true, please see point #1

I have a 3rd-party sourcebook out right now, as we speak, and in no fashion have I received any complaints about its applicability to the existing game.

So lets try to steer this back on topic. The original author of the "open letter" wants WotC to advertise his products, dedicated space on WotC's servers, provide awards and rewards, and distribute his products. 

*What a load of crap*. That open letter shows little more than a frustrated publisher (writer?) that wants the larger company to take over his responsibilities. The successful designers out there fight tooth and nail to develop quality products, while working to get the word out about said products. He is using the GSL (like some others) as a means to garnish dissent against WotC.

If you are upset because the GSL will not let you use specific monsters that belong to the Wizards' IP, cool. I get that. But to say you can't do your work because of it, is just plain incorrect.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

When Jon Brazer Enterprises considered expanding into a fantasy market a while back, we looked long and hard at Paizo's license vs WotC's license (good vs. scary). Then we looked at how Paizo and WotC treat their licensees (good vs apathy). Then we discreetly talked to hard core gamers of both groups and asked about their buying interests (generally open to 3rd party support vs. generally steadfastly against any 3rd party support except for tepid interest in adventures). Then we watched DriveThru/RPGNow's top 100 like a hawk and found that more Pathfinder 3rd party products were higher than their 4E counterparts. 

In the end, we went Pathfinder. We didn't feel there was a choice to be made. The decision for us was obvious. We haven't considered switching since. From our prospective, 4E is just not a viable market. 

If WotC really, actually wants a 3rd party market at all, they have to make changes. Its not a statement of entitlement or whining. Its a business decision. Plain and simple.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Jon, 

So your organization is/was specifically interested in using proprietary elements of 4e?



> The License applies to the use in third party publications of certain
> proprietary elements of Wizards’  Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition roleplaying game products


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt,

The GSL is the only *official *option open to support D&D 4e, and while I applaud the publishers efforts to continue to support it outside of those constraints, it shouldn't be the expected course of action.  Choosing to use the official channels to support the game should not be a blow against your product.

I'm not surprised to see so many publishers jumping ship, and DEM's complaints about lack of support of any kind.  Your suggestion to go completely on your own to the point of even abandoning the license... does not help anyone who's complaint is that other companies in the fantasy market publishing for a rival game get an automatic advantage because they are receiving direct support.

WotC obviously doesn't have to either care or do anything.  I don't know if they would be better off doing so or not at this point.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Jon,
> 
> So your organization is/was specifically interested in using proprietary elements of 4e?




JBE has no interest in skirting around a free and open license intended to produce an environment safe for publishers. While others publishers may have the legal knowledge to do that without getting into hot water, we are less confident to do so 100% of the time. We understand all 3 licenses (GSL, OGL and PF Compat License) are are confident to be safe 100% of the time within these licenses. Outside those licenses is a different matter entirely.

Matt, since you are advocating going around the license, I highly recommend you start your own company and do so yourself. Business is not child's play, but a serious matter. If a business does not want to do a risky maneuver, no one should be pushing them to do otherwise.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Jon,

Thanks for the lesson. I appreciate your concern for my knowledge of the industry--I really do. Take a look at the actual license if you get a moment, and browse some of the larger publishers that use 4e content without subscribing to the GSL. If I can muster him away from his other duties, I'll try to bring my attorney in on the thread--or at least get him to put up another article. He's a convention organizer here in the DC area, and specializes in IP law.

The trenches are dug on this topic, and I don't know if many people will budge. With that being said, the original 'open letter' changes little with its sense of entitlement.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> If I can muster him away from his other duties, I'll try to bring my attorney in on the thread--or at least get him to put up another article. He's a convention organizer here in the DC area, and specializes in IP law.




It doesn't matter. JBE is not interested in going non-license. We play nice.



Matt James said:


> The trenches are dug on this topic, and I don't know if many people will budge. With that being said, the original 'open letter' changes little with its sense of entitlement.




From your prospective. From my prospective as a publisher, it is asking for Wizards to do the minimum to be apart of the 21st century of social marketing (which they do do for themselves, how hard would it be to mention once per week on facebook "I'm reading XXX from XXX publisher. Its really good." While that may sound like entitlement to you, it is basic business practices in this day and age.). It is also asking for a reason to stick around, to feel valued. Paizo gives us 3rd party publishers a real sense of value that I can hear is lacking in the open letter to Wizards. I feel for the author. The only thing that separates me from him is 1 decision.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Best of luck in your endeavors then.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

The issue is that you haven't demonstrated that doing so will benefit WotC. Clearly it would benefit you; and appear to strongly believe that it will benefit them. But they clearly disagree, and it would require verifiable data and causation to make this any more than an exchange of personal opinions. 

Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence (assuming the research ultimately DID show that, which is by no means certain) would sway their stance. But an open letter signed by potential beneficiaries of such a move is not going to convince anyone; you have to conclusively show that WotC would be a beneficiary.

Given that there were sizeable camps at WotC against having the GSL at all (Scott Rouse had to fight to get it) and who clearly believe that it is not in their interests, it'd be an uphill battle.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

The issue is that you haven't demonstrated that doing so will benefit WotC. Clearly it would benefit you; and appear to strongly believe that it will benefit them. But they clearly disagree, and it would require verifiable data and causation to make this any more than an exchange of personal opinions. 

Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence (assuming the research ultimately DID show that, which is by no means certain) would sway their stance. But an open letter signed by potential beneficiaries of such a move is not going to convince anyone; you have to conclusively show that WotC would be a beneficiary.

Given that there were sizeable camps at WotC against having the GSL at all (Scott Rouse had to fight to get it) and who clearly believe that it is not in their interests, it'd be an uphill battle.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Given that there were sizeable camps at WotC against having the GSL at all (Scott Rouse had to fight to get it) and who clearly believe that it is not in their interests, it'd be an uphill battle.




You just demonstrated my second point for me (the one about the 1st party's view of their licensees).


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> You just demonstrated my second point for me (the one about the 1st party's view of their licensees).




But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point.  What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms _why_ you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point.  What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms _why_ you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.




Truthfully, I don't have to. Wizards is not the industry leader anymore and D&D isn't the market leader. My company supports the market leader (Pathfinder) which is held by the industry leader (Paizo). The license holder's customers are interested in 3rd party products without me having to convince people that 3rd party products are good. I only have to focus on convincing people that MY 3rd party products are good. And the license holder promotes me on their own website and their newsletter. 

The question really is, "What can Wizards offer me to make me switch?" If that answer involves something like Dark Sun (now that Wizards is done publishing for it for ... who knows how long, even if I had to pay for that license and had approval terms), yea I'd be interested. Until then, 4E is not an attractive license.


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point.  What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms _why_ you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.




I'll give a 'why' it would be good:

Even WotC can't publish everything 4e every fan would want for their product, ESPECIALLY now that they have dialed back their release schedule.  3pp can step up to fill the gaps that people feel are in the system, or cater to unique niche ideas.

You're own products are an example of this, you're publishing a quality product that fills a need that 4e has.

I'm more likely to play a system that I feel I can get material to support my games, especially material I like.  To play a system, I need to spend money on the system, and in the case of 4e... probably even subscribe to DDI.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Jon,

By the very topic of this debate, you _do_ need to illustrate your point in convincing terms, else everything you are saying means nothing to the topic, and you are here to merely troll.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm not sure why DEM is even bothering.

WotC didn't do anything to support 3PP in the later times of 3.x either.  The last open content released (IIRC) was Unearthed Arcana in 2004.  Was there anything from 2005-2008?  I don't think so.   

The only mentions of 3.x 3PPs during that time were in Dragon magazine (which, of course, was published by Paizo).

And who has time at Wizards to support 3PPs?  Show me someone who has the time to spend on 3PPs at Wizards and I'll show you the next person in line for a severance package.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Truthfully, I don't have to. Wizards is not the industry leader anymore and D&D isn't the market leader.




:shrug:  That's what the thread's about. 

And don't believe everything you read on the internet.  Paizo selling more copies of their core rulebook in one quarter than WotC sold of a supplement does not "the market leader" make.  Unless you have solid long-term figures for both companies, this is not useful data.



> The question really is, "What can Wizards offer me to make me switch?"




That might be _your _question, but it's not _the_ question.  _The_ question (at least in this thread) is "_Why_ should WotC do something to make it easier for third-party-publishers?" because that is the response to the initial "Open Letter".  

I can imagine how that conversation would go:

Open Letter:  WotC you should make it easier for 3PPs!
WotC: Why?
Response: I don't have to answer that because I don't think you're the market leader. 
WotC: Shrug.  Move along.  _That_ was a waste of time.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence...






Morrus said:


> But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point.  What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms _why_ you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.




It is not sensible to ask for the sort of data you are asking for.
OGL, GSL or no license at all is mostly a matter of business sense and policy. It is rather a strategic matter for the brand.

If Wotc wanted to have stronger third party support, it would probably market its intention by posing questions about this matter.

I think it is clear that in the current phase they do not want or rather trust a separate market of third party products attached to their brand.

Matt James is right. This is a letter towards Dias Ex Machina's fans; not towards Wotc.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

Perram said:


> I'm more likely to play a system that I feel I can get material to support my games, especially material I like. To play a system, I need to spend money on the system, and in the case of 4e... probably even subscribe to DDI.




Unfortunately, that's merely an anecdote.  What you'd need to demonstrate is a significant (in WotC terms - so tens of thousands) number of people who verifiably currently do not purchase WotC's products who verifiably would do so if that action were taken.  

WotC's position is that this action would not make a noticeable difference to their bottom line.  I'm afraid that simply stating "Well I think it would" isn't enough; that's not data.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

xechnao said:


> It is not sensible to ask for the sort of data you are asking for.




Of course not.  I know that nobody has it.  And without it, all these claims have no basis in reality; they are no more than anecdotes and personal opinions.  That's my point.



> Matt James is right. This is a letter towards Dias Ex Machina's fans; not towards Wotc.




Yup.  Without a demonstrable benefit to WotC it's no more than a list for gifts from Santa Claus.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Unfortunately, that's merely an anecdote.  What you'd need to demonstrate is a significant (in WotC terms - so tens of thousands) number of people who verifiably currently do not purchase WotC's products who verifiably would do so if that action were taken.
> 
> WotC's position is that this action would not make a noticeable difference to their bottom line.  I'm afraid that simply stating "Well I think it would" isn't enough; that's not data.




Again, what you are asking for here Morrus is not something that a market analyst could sort out.

If there were a dozen of competitive brands and some of them used an open license while others did not, all this within a somewhat stable pie market, then in this case an analyst could easily figure this out.

But in the current state of affairs? It just does not make any sense to try to think about it.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Jon,
> 
> By the very topic of this debate, you _do_ need to illustrate your point in convincing terms, else everything you are saying means nothing to the topic, and you are here to merely troll.




Play nice.

My point is is that Wizards is acting like they hold all the cards, like 50% of all RPG sales are D&D (not D&D and 3rd party companies, but D&D). That's not true anymore. If they want 3rd party companies to fill out their market for them, they need to attract them. The responsibility is theirs, not mine.

Its a 3rd party's market right now, not the licenser's market. 5 years ago, it was a licenser's market. They could do this kind of stuff and people would sign on because the license was that valuable. Times have changed. Paizo's license is more valuable. Hell, the Fate, Savage Worlds and Icons licenses are more valuable. If they want 3rd party companies to support them, they need to earn it. 

That might sound like "entitlement" to you, but it is Basic Capitalism 101. The iPad right now holds all the cards for being first and for being from apple. An android tablet has to offer something pretty sweet (like USB ports, higher res cameras, ability to transfer files from your computer to the tablet with ease, etc) to grab market share. House A is in a better neighborhood with a better school district than House B. House B has to offer a pretty sweet deal if it wants to be sold. I'm essentially the "buyer" of a license. Right now, Wizards needs to convince me that their license has any value. From where I stand, it doesn't.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Jon, you're doing it again.

Can you point me to demonstrable examples of the behavior you are describing in your opening paragraph? You're using emotion, rather than logic, to get your point across. The rest of your post can be ignored because you are trying to confuse the topic further, without speaking to the original thesis of this argument--and the 'Open Letter' that started it.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Again, what you are asking for here Morrus is not something that a market analyst could sort out.




And again, yes, that's my point.  Declarative statements not supported by data are worthless.  Since we don't have the data, there's little point making massive sweeping declarative statements.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Paizo's license is more valuable. Hell, the Fate license is more valuable.




I do not get you. Are you saying this from a licensee's or an end customer's perspective?


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> And again, yes, that's my point.  Declarative statements not supported by data are worthless.  Since we don't have the data, there's little point making massive sweeping declarative statements.




Yup, sorry. I submitted that post before having seen your reply.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> And again, yes, that's my point.  Declarative statements not supported by data are worthless.  Since we don't have the data, there's little point making massive sweeping declarative statements.




I can't give XP right now, so I wanted to reiterate what Morrus put here.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Play nice.
> 
> My point is is that Wizards is acting like they hold all the cards, like 50% of all RPG sales are D&D (not D&D and 3rd party companies, but D&D). That's not true anymore.




This is not verifiably true, as I have indicated more than once already.



> If they want 3rd party companies to fill out their market for them, they need to attract them. The responsibility is theirs, not mine.  If they want 3rd party companies to support them, they need to earn it. Right now, Wizards needs to convince me that their license has any value. From where I stand, it doesn't.




But they clearly _don't _want 3rd party companies to fill out their market for them.  Everything after your "if" is predicated on a premise that does not exist - they don't need or want to convince you of anything because in their opinion, it is not to their advantage to do so.


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Unfortunately, that's merely an anecdote.  What you'd need to demonstrate is a significant (in WotC terms - so tens of thousands) number of people who verifiably currently do not purchase WotC's products who verifiably would do so if that action were taken.
> 
> WotC's position is that this action would not make a noticeable difference to their bottom line.  I'm afraid that simply stating "Well I think it would" isn't enough; that's not data.




It may be annecdotal in my one case but the premise is generic enough to not be:

If, _all other things being equal_, or at least the differences negligible, System A has material available for it that a potential buyer would like, and System B does not... that pushes the odds of purchase towards System A.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

You invoked the word "like" into your logic. It broke down from there. You cannot quantify preference or desire.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

xechnao said:


> I do not get you. Are you saying this from a licensee's or an end customer's perspective?




A licensee's prospective. The #1 measure is $$$. Paizo 3rd party products sell better than D&D 4E 3rd party products. The #2 measure is how easy is the licenser to work with. D&D is simply leaves their licensees alone, letting them wonder when the day will come when the license is gone. Paizo encourages their licensees. Just my opinion, but as a business man, that's the final analysis.


----------



## Emberion (Mar 8, 2011)

I will illustrate why Alluria Publishing has stopped producing new 4E material and now focuses on Pathfinder.

For us, it has little to do with support by WotC and a lot more to do with "nobody is buying it." 

Fey Folio: Available both in 4E format and Pathfinder format. The 4E version received 2 honorable mentions in the ENnies (the pathfinder version was released after the deadline).

Both versions get glowing reviews.
Both versions have basically the same material, just altered for different games systems.
Both versions are priced the same.

We have sold about 40 4th Ed Fey Folios.
We have sold about 250 Pathfinder Fey Folios, and it has been out for a shorter time.

This is the best example, because the products are so similar that the only difference is that one is 4E and the other is Pathfinder. Unless you believe that winning ENnie mention is somehow BAD for your product, which I highly doubt is the case. We sold most of those 4e copies after the awards were announced.

Our other 4E products have faired far worse.

Our Pathfinder titles, however, has been universally promising.

So why spend time and effort on a product that is just not selling....especially when you can spend the same amount of time and effort on a different system and have it sell?


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> You invoked the word "like" into your logic. It broke down from there. You cannot quantify preference or desire.




Ok Matt,

You are becoming ridiculously pedantic.  

I can most certainly quantify a generic preference for an imaginary idea to a value greater than zero in an argument that is entirely about buyer's preference.  It is the entire basis for marketing!

If I had two T.V. shows about Space Marines at about the same quality, but one also had Ninjas and Ninjas had become popular lately... the show with Ninjas would be more likely to be the more popular show.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Paizo 3rd party products sell better than D&D 4E 3rd party products.




We can go around in this circle once more. Can you please provide me the metrics used for your conclusion?


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Jon, you're doing it again.
> 
> Can you point me to demonstrable examples of the behavior you are describing in your opening paragraph? You're using emotion, rather than logic, to get your point across. The rest of your post can be ignored because you are trying to confuse the topic further, without speaking to the original thesis of this argument--and the 'Open Letter' that started it.






			
				Open Letter said:
			
		

> On Friday, February 25th, I received a phone call from a writer experienced in 4th Edition wishing to produce his product. He had previously been tied to another major publisher that had recently dropped its 4th Edition lineup in favor of Paizo’s Pathfinder which they claim had been growing in sales to the extent of surpassing their 4th Edition products. This is not an isolated incident but only the latest symptom, following in the wake of similar announcements from Mongoose and Goodman Games. For all intents and purposes, despite declarations from fanboys on both sides about whether Pathfinder or D&D is the better seller, it is now glaringly obvious that from the 3rd party publisher outlook, the winner has been decided.




What I am saying and have been saying has everything to do with this. Just about every major 3rd party company recognized that Mongoose has a good head for business. They jumped ship because they didn't make enough of a profit. Goodman has an emotional attachment to 4E and they are moving to their own system. 

And yes Morris, you are right. IMO Wizards does not want a 3rd party market. But my comments were in response to Matt's comments. I'm saying this is what would need to happen for me to consider signing on.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> A licensee's prospective. The #1 measure is $$$. Paizo 3rd party products sell better than D&D 4E 3rd party products.




My 4E products sell _extremely_ well, in a variety of outlets and accessing methods. I'd like to see the data that indicates that on average Paizo 3PP products sell better than mine.

Indeed, I believe that if there were 500 third party 4E publishers, my 4E products would not sell nearly as well - as I witnessed to the hurtage of my wallet during the growth of d20.  The status quo does me just fine.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> ...else everything you are saying means nothing to the topic, and you are here to merely troll.






Perram said:


> You are becoming ridiculously pedantic.





Folks,

You see these?  They are signs the thread is getting heated, and folks are starting to make it personal - addressing the speaker, rather than the speaker's position.  That's not constructive.

Please stop, take a moment, breathe, and don't continue the discussion in that style any further.  Thank you, all.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2011)

Perram said:


> It may be annecdotal in my one case but the premise is generic enough to not be:
> 
> If, _all other things being equal_, or at least the differences negligible, System A has material available for it that a potential buyer would like, and System B does not... that pushes the odds of purchase towards System A.




The thing is that all other things are not equal. Who is not to say that Wotc could not find itself against a myriad of problems like a publisher producing a line that would be of a better quality and more successful than what they do and thus risking to hurt the privileges of the D&D brand's value.

You do not need to use a lot of your imagination to see a possible candidate.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> My 4E products sell _extremely_ well, in a variety of outlets and accessing methods. I'd like to see the data that indicates that on average Paizo 3PP products sell better than mine.




And here I thought you felt your products were better than average.

since you have a somewhat unusual sales system (I'm thinking of the subscription model of the AP), the best approach would be to compare your 4e sales with your 3e sales for the same time period, no?  It's not perfect of course, since it is probable that some who wanted the AP for 3e would have picked it up prior to the 4e conversion and your move to a subscription model.

Emberion's anecdotal evidence does suggest that for some product types, Pathfinder can sell better. A 1:6 ratio for 4eF for identical product out the same amout of time with the 4e product receiving award mention is notable.


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

xechnao said:


> The thing is that all other things are not equal. Who is not to say that Wotc could not find itself against a myriad of problems like a publisher producing a line that would be of a better quality and more successful than what they do and thus risking to hurt the privileges of the D&D brand's value.
> 
> You do not need to use a lot of your imagination to see a possible candidate.




Ok... you got me there.  

But I guess the genie is already out of the bottle on this one?  

Steeve Jackson Games did an interview on Happy Jack's RPG Podcast recently discussing this very thing, about why they didn't have 3rd party GURPS support.  And quality control as well as brand control and the possibility of... well, a Pathfinder happening to them were issues they were concerned about.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> We can go around in this circle once more. Can you please provide me the metrics used for your conclusion?




DriveThruRPG's Top 100 Small Press contains as of time of posting:

Icons titles: 13
Pathfinder titles: 13 (one of which is from my company, in the interest of full disclosure)
Savage World's titles: 11
Fate titles: 5

D&D 4E titles: *0*

From my oversations, I would consider this an average day. 

Note: I did not count Fantastic Maps: The Sand Dragon Inn in either Pathfinder or D&D since it was listed under both.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

Nagol said:


> And here I thought you felt your products were better than average.
> 
> since you have a somewhat unusual sales system (I'm thinking of the subscription model of the AP), the best approach would be to compare your 4e sales with your 3e sales for the same time period, no? It's not perfect of course, since it is probable that some who wanted the AP for 3e would have picked it up prior to the 4e conversion and hyour move to a subscription model.




Well, I'm not going to disclose the exact figures, but WotBS 4E has sold _three times_ what WotBS 3.5 ever did, even adding in the current 3.5 re-issues which are being made available alongside the 4E versions.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Jon, we're to the point where I think you just don't get what's being said--or are choosing to ignore it. I'll let the debate rage on, and withdraw before it gets really whacky.


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Nagol said:


> And here I thought you felt your products were better than average.
> 
> since you have a somewhat unusual sales system (I'm thinking of the subscription model of the AP), the best approach would be to compare your 4e sales with your 3e sales for the same time period, no?  It's not perfect of course, since it is probable that some who wanted the AP for 3e would have picked it up prior to the 4e conversion and your move to a subscription model.
> 
> Emberion's anecdotal evidence does suggest that for some product types, Pathfinder can sell better a 1:6 ratio for 4eF for identical product out the same amout of time with the 4e product receiving award mention is notable.




dmccoy1693's earlier post also gave more evidence where he went over the research they did to decide to go with PF over 4e as a company.

The other thing to consider is that PF already has a lot of APs coming from the main company, and they get great reviews.  Conversely, 4e's adventures... not as well received.

I can see 4e being the better choice in Morrus' case because of both the nature of his product AND his early mention of getting a big slice of a small pie.

That said... I'm sure someone coming into the market now wouldn't want to get a 'small piece of a small pie.'


----------



## Nagol (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Well, I'm not going to disclose the exact figures, but WotBS 4E has sold _three times_ what WotBS 3.5 ever did, even adding in the current 3.5 re-issues which are being made available alongside the 4E versions.




Which suggest for other product types, the ratio reverses.

If we look at the product types in question, we see that Paizo specialises in adventure paths (presenting about 2 per year) and you aren't marketing directly to their product brand, but to the legacy into which they are tied.

Emberion's product sounds much more like a focus on a creature type that WotC produces (Draconomincon, Fiendish Codices, Libram Mortis, etc.) that Paizo is not known to produce.  Perhaps part of the difference in experience relates to the attached system and the apparent amount of competition from the brand holder for that market segment.

It's a hard hypothesis to test without much wider access to the market and/or a publisher willing to experiment with their money and time.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 8, 2011)

So, this may be a stupid question, but is there a reason why Wizards/Hasbro can't revoke the OGL?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Which suggest for other product types, the ratio reverses.
> 
> If we look at the product types in question, we see that Paizo specialises in adventure paths (presenting about 2 per year) and you aren't marketing directly to their product brand, but to the legacy into which they are tied.
> 
> ...




Well, yeah - we deliberately specialize in 4E adventure paths because the massive gap in the market there benefits us.  Frankly, it's an awesome gap, and we'll have another two 4E APs to fill it very soon.

I daresay that we could not sell a Pathfinder AP because there are so many of them.  It would certainly be a very expensive experiment, given that we spend tens of thousands on an AP over the course of its lifetime.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

renau1g said:


> So, this may be a stupid question, but is there a reason why Wizards/Hasbro can't revoke the OGL?




Because the text of the license prevents them from doing so.

The could - and did - revoke the d20 STL.  The OGL is an open license, and can never be revoked.


----------



## Frylock (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James asked me to contribute to this thread. I’m not sure my legal expertise is entirely on point, so I’ll save most of my views for a future article on loremaster.org, where I have a series of articles called Protection from Chaos. However, considering how badly some of you are going off topic, I feel comfortable addressing a side issue that was raised earlier. 

After Matt (henceforth, “JackholeDM”) suggested going outside the GSL, Dmccoy1693 responded, “JBE is not interested in going non-license. We play nice.” (Post #25).  There’s nothing “not nice” about ignoring the GSL. As we all know, game rules aren’t copyrightable because they are “functional” (we have patents for that); however, we tend not to fully appreciate the ramifications of that. What is copyrightable is the word, “bulette,” for example, describing a creature created by Gygax, Arneson, or whomever. “Elf” is not. It existed prior to the game, and in fact prior to the concept of copyright law. As an interesting side note, I had to go to Wikipedia to verify that bulette is actually a creation of D&D. There really aren’t that many D&D monsters that are original creations.

So, what does the GSL protect? It protects the word bulette (SRD, page 61), but it doesn’t protect the functional parts of the stat block or the rules under which those stats are applied. Moreover, it doesn’t protect use of the term “Strength” to represent physical might because that term is used too generically to contain any semblance of “originality.” In other words, WotC isn’t permitted to own the word Strength (as is proven by just about every other non-WotC RPG on the market). Truthfully, there is so little that is protectable by WotC, it seems petty (or at least ignorant – which doesn’t mean stupid, so don’t start whining) to complain when they protect what little intellectual property (“IP”) they actually have.

The GSL protects IP, but simultaneously maintains game integrity. What I mean by that is as follows: Without the GSL, you can’t use the term bulette (though you can create something very similar with the same exact stats), so the GSL protects WotC’s IP in the term. What it also does is require you to accept their definition of an elf. They don’t own elf, but they force you to comply with their vision of the elf in order to receive permission to use bulette. This is a fair trade, and it is not “unlawful tying” (for my fellow legal geeks***), because it assures them that all officially licensed products are on the same page creatively speaking.

If, however, you don’t use the GSL, then you may not use the term “bulette.” That’s it. You can’t say, “bulette.” Dragon, elf, and as I learned just yesterday, peryton, are all legendary creatures, and like most D&D monsters, are fair game. As a general rule, all copyright law forbids is your use of proper names, both for creatures (e.g., “Elminster”) and locations (e.g., “Toril”). If you do a quick internet search and find that a fantasy-based creature existed prior to the game, they don’t own it, though Tolkien or Lovecraft might. 

There’s nothing “not nice” about going this route, nor is it particularly difficult to travel.

Now, before you take this as legal advice, let me say it absolutely isn’t. I don’t just say this to protect my law license. I say this to protect you from doing something stupid because space limitations preclude me from making more than mere generalizations. There are intricacies to this area of the law, but it would be horribly offensive for WotC to claim ownership in things they clearly don’t own. On the flip side, though, it’s horribly offensive for anyone to complain that they make business decisions to protect what little IP there is to be had in this area.

*** I could find only one case on unlawful tying in the context of copyright law (can’t find the cite immediately), and it was from decades ago (50’s, I think) and in California, where the courts have an incentive to protect copyright. The copyright monopoly was considered too weak to extend unlawful tying to it. The subject hasn’t been brought up in a published decision since.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Jon, we're to the point where I think you just don't get what's being said--or are choosing to ignore it.




I know your points and I am rejecting them. Your point is is that, I as a small publisher should beg and plead Wizards to let me work on their game, or I should go the less polite option and ignore the license ... because D&D is just that worth it. 

I am saying, I don't have to. I have an inviting environment over here that (according to several publishers that quit creating 3rd party 4E material and now produce 3rd party Pathfinder material, according to DriveThruRPG's numbers, according another source that I privately shared with Morris) sells in greater numbers. 

Seriously, I can't state it any more clearly. Wizards has to change, not me. As it stands now, I'm not interested in working on 4E in any capacity and I am really stumped why any company would really want to.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Seriously, I can't state it any more clearly. Wizards has to change, not me. As it stands now, I'm not interested in working on 4E in any capacity and I am really stumped why any company would really want to.




But you keep saying that. "WotC has to change". Why? _Why_ does it have to change? Why do you keep maintaining that it does have to?

_That's_ Matt's point, the one to which you are not replying. You keep making a statement, and people are asking you to qualify it.

It _doesn't_ have to change, IMO. It has no reason to. It doesn't _want_ you to produce 3PP products; those that are possible were begrudgingly allowed after Scott Rouse campaigned for it. It does not agree that 3PPs will benefit it.  In addition, _I_ am personally quite happy for it not to do so, because I get a larger piece of the pie that way.  

No, you don't have to convince WotC of anything. You _do_ have to convince your fellow debaters in this thread, though, in order to be taken seriously; otherwise why are you even here, posting? Making statements and saying "Nyah nyah, I don't have to!" when asked to back them up is not debating. It's barely conversation. 

That's what we're doing, right? Debating this amongst ourselves? To take part in the debate, you have to back up what you say. And that is by answering the question: _"Why?"_


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Post deleted, it was not necessary.


----------



## czak (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I know your points and I am rejecting them. Your point is is that, I as a small publisher should beg and plead Wizards to let me work on their game, or I should go the less polite option and ignore the license ... because D&D is just that worth it.
> 
> I am saying, I don't have to. I have an inviting environment over here that (according to several publishers that quit creating 3rd party 4E material and now produce 3rd party Pathfinder material, according to DriveThruRPG's numbers, according another source that I privately shared with Morris) sells in greater numbers.
> 
> Seriously, I can't state it any more clearly. Wizards has to change, not me. As it stands now, I'm not interested in working on 4E in any capacity and I am really stumped why any company would really want to.




I think you and he are really talking at cross purposes. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe he's asking why should WOTC care that 3PPs are chosing Paizo over them. What is the benefit to WOTC's bottom line of having you or anyone else publishing.


I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Dancy's networking theory was correct.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I know your points and I am rejecting them. Your point is is that, I as a small publisher should beg and plead Wizards to let me work on their game, or I should go the less polite option and ignore the license ... because D&D is just that worth it.




If you can find where I ever stated that, I'll gladly eat my words. You should go back, reread what has been said, and try to comprehend the topic. I do think, however, that this comment shows your remarkable bias against WotC. Im starting to get the picture now.

Rob, thanks for stopping by and clearing that up. I knew your knowledge of IP law would prove valuable--as always.


----------



## czak (Mar 8, 2011)

Frylock said:


> Matt James asked me to contribute to this thread.  I’m not sure my legal expertise is entirely on point, so I’ll save most  of my views for a future article on loremaster.org, where I have a  series of articles called Protection from Chaos. However, considering  how badly some of you are going off topic, I feel comfortable addressing  a side issue that was raised earlier.




Just a quick question - do you folks down south have cost shifting for unsuccessful or frivolous legal actions or do both parties pay their own costs regardless of the merits of a case? My understanding is that the OGL was partially introduced to reduce anxiety around getting SLAPPed with a lawsuit. Are the issues so clear cut now that it is not a worry?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

czak said:


> I think you and he are really talking at cross purposes. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe he's asking why should WOTC care that 3PPs are chosing Paizo over them. What is the benefit to WOTC's bottom line of having you or anyone else publishing.
> 
> I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Dancy's networking theory was correct.




That's an excellent summary.  It would appear that at present, the current management of WotC does not believe that the networking theory is correct - or, at the very least, disagrees with the extent of any such benefit.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> But you keep saying that. "WotC has to change". Why? _Why_ does it have to change? Why do you keep maintaining that it does have to?
> 
> _That's_ Matt's point, the one to which you are not replying. You keep making a statement, and people are asking you to qualify it.




I have been answering it. However, my answers have been ignored.



dmccoy1693 said:


> DriveThruRPG's Top 100 Small Press contains as of time of posting:
> 
> Icons titles: 13
> Pathfinder titles: 13 (one of which is from my company, in the interest of full disclosure)
> ...






dmccoy1693 said:


> ... it is Basic Capitalism 101. The iPad right now holds all the cards for being first and for being from apple. An android tablet has to offer something pretty sweet (like USB ports, higher res cameras, ability to transfer files from your computer to the tablet with ease, etc) to grab market share. House A is in a better neighborhood with a better school district than House B. House B has to offer a pretty sweet deal if it wants to be sold. I'm essentially the "buyer" of a license. Right now, Wizards needs to convince me that their license has any value. From where I stand, it doesn't.




Here's a prime example of what I am saying from a different publisher in the same thread that had published 4E and jumped ship to Pathfinder.



Emberion said:


> I will illustrate why Alluria Publishing has stopped producing new 4E material and now focuses on Pathfinder.
> 
> For us, it has little to do with support by WotC and a lot more to do with "nobody is buying it."
> 
> ...




My point is (which I have stated many, many times) is $$$. Pathfinder sells better than 4E. Even with a small piece of a very large pie. Trying to convince me my total area of pie (regardless of the total pie size) will be bigger if I jump to 4E isn't going to happen. Every indicator tells me my total sales will go down, my profits will go down, work involved to get 4E customers to give a 3rd party a chance will go up and I'm going to have no help from the licenser to make a profit. 

What reason can anyone give me to sign up for more work for less money? 

What I am saying is if Wizards wants a 3rd party market (which, my Morris' own words, they don't), they would have to do something to sweeten the deal (like examples stated in the Open Letter). I consider the examples stated in the Open Letter *minimums* for me to begin to consider the GSL.


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> That's an excellent summary.  It would appear that at present, the current management of WotC does not believe that the networking theory is correct - or, at the very least, disagrees with the extent of any such benefit.




I guess this really is the core of the disagreements here.

Its my _opinion _that WotC would benifit more if 3pp picked up the areas that 1) they don't seem interested in producing and 2) players want.

And that IF they want more 3pp support, they would need to make the area easier to get into.

But... I don't _think _they want it.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

So, if I go over to RPGnow and upload 50 4e documents/products, that is a metric for the success of the brand?


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Perram said:


> I guess this really is the core of the disagreements here.
> 
> Its my _opinion _that WotC would benifit more if 3pp picked up the areas that 1) they don't seem interested in producing and 2) players want.
> 
> ...




This.

I completely agree with you.

Edit: That being said, you do not need the GSL to produce content for 4e (as somewhat explained by Rob).


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> So, if I go over to RPGnow and upload 50 4e documents/products, that is a metric for the success of the brand?




If they started obviously outselling the other products, then... yup!  It would be a metric of the brand.

Edit: /A/ metric, of course, and mostly for how well 4e products would do, etc...


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Perram said:


> If they started obviously outselling the other products, then... yup!  It would be a metric of the brand.




He was merely using the data of how many products were up. No sales data. Also, from one source in the entire industry. That was more of my point


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> He was merely using the data of how many products were up. No sales data. Also, from one source in the entire industry. That was more of my point




Oh, I think he's using the top 100 list, which is the ones that are selling the best over the past 24 hours.  Its only a 1 day snapshot, but it does represent sales data.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Well, if I have 50 products from line [A] and 10 from line *. Line [A] will likely take up the top spots, right? *


----------



## renau1g (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I have been answering it. However, my answers have been ignored.
> .




but you haven't been answering the question from Morrus and Matt. They were asking why *WOTC* should change their policy to accommodate 3PP's. As in, why would it be better for them to have 3PP's? Would it improve their bottom line? I'm guessing they have pretty decent data that none of us have, during their 3e/OGL days to tell us that.


----------



## Perram (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Well, if I have 50 products from line [A] and 10 from line *. Line [A] will likely take up the top spots, right? *



*

No no, of course not! 

I see what you're saying, and if it was pure number vs. number here I would agree. I would have suggested that we needed to look at what ranks they placed, get more data, etc...

But it isn't that Product A has 50 and Product B has 10...

Product B has 0.

If 4e products aren't even placing in the top 100 at all.  Product A, in this measurement, wins by default against Product B.*


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I have been answering it. However, my answers have been ignored.




But these stats do not answer the question.

They show that Pathfinder 3PP products may well sell well, and that 4E 3PP products may not sell so well (although, again, my own anecdotal data disputes that strongly).

But that's only why it's in _your _interest, not why it's in WotC's interest.  Why is it to their benefit that _your _product sells well?

Their current goal appears to be to gain DDI subscribers. 



> My point is (which I have stated many, many times) is $$$. Pathfinder sells better than 4E.




WotC has a LOT of DDI subscribers, and they make a LOT of money from it.  They're deliberately moving towards digital content because they believe that that's the most profitable model for them.  How does you selling more of your product help them do this?




> Trying to convince me my total area of pie (regardless of the total pie size) will be bigger if I jump to 4E isn't going to happen.




I'm not trying to convince you of this.  I don't want you to produce 4E products.  I want you and everyone else to continue producing Pathfinder products and leave me my 4E 3PP market share, which is currently absolutely lovely.



> What I am saying is if Wizards wants a 3rd party market (which, my Morris' own words, they don't), they would have to do something to sweeten the deal (like examples stated in the Open Letter). I consider the examples stated in the Open Letter *minimums* for me to begin to consider the GSL.




Yeah, but they don't want a 3PP market.  So anything after the word "if" is redundant.  If they did, probably they would do something like that.  They don't, though.

Thus the Open Letter is pointless.  They see no reason to try to enhance the 4E 3PP market.


----------



## Falstaff (Mar 8, 2011)

It's interesting to watch game designers debate about the games they design for and which is outselling the other. I'm sure their investment isn't creating bias for any of them.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

Falstaff said:


> It's interesting to watch game designers debate about the games they design for and which is outselling the other. I'm sure their investment isn't creating bias for any of them.




I have design credits with each, including 3PP like Kobold Quarterly/Open Design


----------



## enrious (Mar 8, 2011)

Dale,

Understand, I'm a Pathfinder player, not 4e.  My sympathies are on the side of the PFRPG 3PP folks.

And yet, Matt's question sits there awaiting an answer.

(If I may try to summarize it, please correct me if I'm wrong in it Matt)

Why should Wizards care what 3pp companies are doing, either in terms of content or especially in terms of sales?  How does having well-selling products using their game system positively affect them?  Do they recieve a single dollar by doing so?   Please show your work.


Look, I'm a fan of 3pp.  I've been around since the beginnings of d20 and RPGNow could attest to my love of 3pp.   And y'know, I'm happy to still support them today.

But from Wizards' point of view, if they see no value in supporting 3pp, why should they?  The goodness of their heart?  That'd be the only reason I can see, given that evidently they see no financial motivation.  And you know, I can respect that.

Sure, Paizo seems to have a differing approach and more power to them for doing so.  Ideally they don't loose any money for it.  But as much as I like Paizo, I'd have to wonder if they would were they to be convinced it was costing them money in the long run.  

And if they were and acted like Wizards, I wouldn't blame them in the least.  You can't pay a mortgage with the goodness of your heart.

It's been stated before and despite all of their...goofs, Wizards isn't a stupid company.  If they believed that supporting 3pp gave them a net benefit, they'd do so.  

They evidently don't, so it's up to the 4e 3pp to decide for themselves if supporting 4e is beneifical to that 3pp, it's not Wizards' job to do that.

Hey, I agree, it'd be nice if Wizards' did more to support them, but I completely understand why they don't.

Likewise, I completely understand why Paizo does.

Apples and Oranges, IMO.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> So, if I go over to RPGnow and upload 50 4e documents/products, that is a metric for the success of the brand?




Ummm... Read my post.

They are the *100 Top Selling Small Press Products*. If it can demonstrated that 4E can *consistently* beat Fate, Icons, Pathfinder, and Savage Worlds in the top 100, you would have a valid argument. Your argument is not valid because there are are *ZERO* products in the top 100 on DriveThru Small Press list today and from my long term observations this is typically the case. 4E products do not consistently make it to the #1 slot on that list. Pathfinder products do, Icons products do, Fate products do, Savage Worlds products do.


----------



## Frylock (Mar 8, 2011)

*SLAPP Legislation*



czak said:


> Just a quick question - do you folks down south have cost shifting for unsuccessful or frivolous legal actions or do both parties pay their own costs regardless of the merits of a case? My understanding is that the OGL was partially introduced to reduce anxiety around getting SLAPPed with a lawsuit. Are the issues so clear cut now that it is not a worry?




The so-called "American rule" dictates that everyone pay their own court costs, win or lose. Attorneys fees and costs are exclusively the right of a judge to award as punishment for improper behavior, an example of which being the filing a frivolous lawsuit. There has been SLAPP legislation passed by various states that was intended to curb frivolous lawsuits, but like everything else in the law, has simply opened the door to new forms of litigation. Litigation sucks, which is why I don't do it anymore, and why you should ask someone else who would have a more knowledgeable answer to your question.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Ummm... Read my post.
> 
> They are the *100 Top Selling Small Press Products*. If it can demonstrated that 4E can *consistently* beat Fate, Icons, Pathfinder, and Savage Worlds in the top 100, you would have a valid argument. Your argument is not valid because there are are *ZERO* products in the top 100 on DriveThru Small Press list today and from my long term observations this is typically the case. 4E products do not consistently make it to the #1 slot on that list. Pathfinder products do, Icons products do, Fate products do, Savage Worlds products do.




Yes, but_ so_?  That's not the point.  The point is "Why should WotC care?"  if the answer is "Because then I, the 3PP, can sell more stuff" then that's irrelevant to WotC.

The Open Letter is an essay asking WotC to make it easier for 3PPs to sell 4E products.  It asks for a list of things.  It does not make a case why making it easier for 3PPs to sell stuff is in WotC's interests - it's literally just a begging letter.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Your argument is not valid because there are are *ZERO* products in the top 100 on DriveThru Small Press list today...




If this is the basis for your entire thesis; okay. I can say that I now fully understand your position and the logic you use to present it. It's flawed, unbelievably, but I get it. 

Edit: Please read Morrus' post above mine.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> If this is the basis for your entire thesis; okay. I can say that I now fully understand your position and the logic you use to present it. It's flawed, unbelievably, but I get it.




I have to agree. RPGNow is not the game industry. It barely even factors in my overall sales (a small percentage), and has factored less and less year on year for about five years now. I would not use RPGNow/DTRPG sales charts for the basis of _any_ business decision because that chart, vague as it is, does not remotely reflect actual sales figures anywhere except on DTRPG.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 8, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Well, if I have 50 products from line [A] and 10 from line *. Line [A] will likely take up the top spots, right? *



*

Uh... No.

First, it's a Top 100. So 50 products can't take up all the spots. (50 < 100)

Second, assuming that (a) the customers for each line buy the same average number of products and (b) sales are spread evenly across all the available titles, product line A would need 5 times as many customers as line B in the scenario you're positing.*


----------



## hutchback (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Ummm... Read my post.
> 
> They are the *100 Top Selling Small Press Products*. If it can demonstrated that 4E can *consistently* beat Fate, Icons, Pathfinder, and Savage Worlds in the top 100, you would have a valid argument. Your argument is not valid because there are are *ZERO* products in the top 100 on DriveThru Small Press list today and from my long term observations this is typically the case. 4E products do not consistently make it to the #1 slot on that list. Pathfinder products do, Icons products do, Fate products do, Savage Worlds products do.




Have you considered any of the other conclusions that can be arrived at by this anecdote? For instance:

1. That the majority of players of 4E don't find that there are gaps in WotC's published materials that need to be filled.

2. That the majority of the content 3PPs are producing fail to fill any perceived gaps in WotC's material.

Just some food for thought. It seems that the bulk of the arguments for WotC supporting 3PPs are based on the premise that the products themselves are desirable, that there is a market for them, and finally that it is only the absence of support by WotC that causes the lack of sales.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

hutchback said:


> Have you considered any of the other conclusions that can be arrived at by this anecdote? For instance:
> 
> 1. That the majority of players of 4E don't find that there are gaps in WotC's published materials that need to be filled.
> 
> 2. That the majority of the content 3PPs are producing fail to fill any perceived gaps in WotC's material.




Or, indeed:

3. That the majority of 4E 3PP products aren't very good.

4. That the majority of 4E 3PP products are nor marketed well online.

(These are alternative possible explanations, of course - not claims.)



> Just some food for thought. It seems that the bulk of the arguments for WotC supporting 3PPs is based on the premise that the products themselves are desirable, that there is a market for them, and finally that it is only the absence of support by WotC that causes the lack of sales.




Yup, that does appear to be the argument; what's lacking is demonstrable motivation and benefit for WotC to accede to these requests.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> WotC has a LOT of DDI subscribers, and they make a LOT of money from it.  They're deliberately moving towards digital content because they believe that that's the most profitable model for them.  How does you selling more of your product help them do this?




I see what you did there


----------



## DangerAbe (Mar 8, 2011)

The only reason for WotC to change is so that they can be "cooler"
Right now, no one thinks Wizards is cool.

I say this as someone who plays 4e - a lot. I run one game and play in two. I buy many WotC's books. 

I buy stuff from them but I don't think they're cool. 

I have players who refuse to buy new books now because they disagree politically with WotC. 
I see people on the forums and know people personally who have a strange insane hatred for WotC because of WotC's business policies.
Most of these people don't work in the RPG industry and aren't directly
 harmed by WotC's policy choices.

People act like WotC kills baby seals or pollutes the environment. I see people respond to WotC with worse ire than Walmart, the BP oil spill, or McDonalds.

I had trouble getting a group together for my current 4e game because people in my area see Paizo as cooler. They want to support the cool company. The good indy company, not the bad corporate company. All corporations are evil...?...or something.

I don't remember people acting this way before 4e.

In fact, if I felt all things were equal, I'd buy Pathfinder over 4e.

I'd rather support a company that supports 3pp and helps the little guy.
I'd buy from the "good guy."
Who wouldn't?

I play 4e because I actually like the design of the system better. I like having 1st level characters that can do stuff and not die easily. I like clearly written rules for magical effects. I like a simplified skill system. I LOVE the 4 defenses.

But if Paizo did to 4e what they've done with 3.5. 

Paizo would get my money. Because they are cooler.

And that is the only reason for Wizards to change.
Networking.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus, it doesn't surprise me that the 4e version of WotBS is outselling 3:1, because last time I checked, most polls suggested the active readership of this site was about that level. Further, ENWorlders are unusually amenable to purchasing PDFs. I should add that is not an accident, either; EN Publishing early on gathered a community of PDF buyers to this site, and as 4e was launching, ENWorld chose to pitch in with 4e, even if that meant, incidentally, alienating a few 3e fans. While ENWorld remains a friendly place to gamers of all stripes, the business end definitely caters to 4e. 

I asked both my local FLGSs, and in both cases, the person I asked laughed heartily before saying that Pathfinder was definitely outselling 4e. My suspicion is that without Hasbro's access to toy stores and mainstream bookstores, 4e would already be buried. 

As a writer, not only do I find 4e unappealing, but the nature of the GSL is hostile to third parties tweaking the rule set. Further the restrictions on use of terms makes it difficult to do world-building.

As a publisher, the GSL look like a walk off the cliff.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> EN Publishing early on gathered a community of PDF buyers to this site, and as 4e was launching, ENWorld chose to pitch in with 4e, even if that meant, incidentally, alienating a few 3e fans. While ENWorld remains a friendly place to gamers of all stripes, the business end definitely caters to 4e.




Well, yes. If I spent $30,000 developing a Pathfinder adventure path and attempted to compete with Paizo's core market, I'd lose $30,000 and the site would close. It would be utterly stupid of me to try to develop adventure paths for a system that is saturated with them rather than a system which has an obvious gap for them. If I spend the same developing a 4E adventure path, I sell product by the bucketload. It's a clear no-brainer.



> I asked both my local FLGSs, and in both cases, the person I asked laughed heartily before saying that Pathfinder was definitely outselling 4e. My suspicion is that without Hasbro's access to toy stores and mainstream bookstores, 4e would already be buried.




FLGS owners are not industry consultants. Half of them can't even run a store properly, let alone make any type of accurate industry analysis. Even those who are competent do not have access to any data but what they themselves are selling. Anecdotes are not data, and making business decisions based on the opinion of one's FLGS owner is... well, it's not something I would do, let's say.

What about DDI, for example? Do people not realise that this is a core market for WotC? That it is clearly immensely profitable? That it is the direction WotC wants to move in? That their future involves you subscribing to their services rather than buying their products? And, despite complaints about the new CB etc., indications are that they are succeeding at this.



> As a writer, not only do I find 4e unappealing, but the nature of the GSL is hostile to third parties tweaking the rule set. Further the restrictions on use of terms makes it difficult to do world-building.
> 
> As a publisher, the GSL look like a walk off the cliff.




That's fine by me! You write your Pathfinder products, I'll happily tell people about them. But I'll write 4E products and enjoy a large market share because I'm happy with the GSL as it is. Everyone's happy!


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

enrious said:


> Why should Wizards care what 3pp companies are doing, either in terms of content or especially in terms of sales?  How does having well-selling products using their game system positively affect them?  Do they recieve a single dollar by doing so?   Please show your work.




Thank you for putting it in terms I get. Apparently I have been missing the forest for the trees. My bad.

Much of the disagreement in my opinion comes down to this: 



> Wizards isn't a stupid company.




I'm not convinced of that. Infact the more I watch them, the more I am growing convinced that Wizards is having serious corporate culture issues that is preventing them performing at their top level. I'd say much of this began in the waning days of 3E but it wasn't really until the announcement of dropping the magazines and the announcement of 4E that many of us were finally woken up to it. As a result the production schedule for 4E has been cut back dramatically over the years. When 4E was first launched there were 13 products scheduled for the first 3 months of its life. 2011 has 6 scheduled for it. That's a *decrease of 89%* in WotC's production schedule. *Inarguable fact.* 

A decrease in 89% of a production schedule is a sign of a dead brand. Not in trouble, not having serious issues. Dead. Did the demand dry up? Yes and no. The 4E market is smaller than the 3E market of 4 years ago was. No doubt. But did 9 out of 10 gamers leave D&D, no. Not by a long shot. Many (if not most) are DDI subscribers. (Atleast I hope so.) 

Print is still apart of their strategy or else they would have stopped print and gone fully to DDI. They are going that way and it is obvious that they intend to do so. I also agree fully with Dancey in that he said 4E is the last version that will be in printed form. But there are still customers that use print products. Those customers are not being serviced by WotC, atleast not nearly as much as before. 

That is where 3rd party products come in. What can a 3rd party product do for a company? Fill in the (now large) gaps in their production schedule with material that they no longer provide. They keep the bring alive when the parent company is more or less have written it off. (Even if the parent company doesn't want to admit it.)

A game system's life is only that of how well it sells, not how many actually play it (unfortunately). Pathfinder had 1 quarter that tied 4E in game stores, but it was still considered ahead since it does not account for Borders/Barns and Nobles/Amazon sales. Borders is now in Bankruptcy (meaning Wizards now has to give back all the money they previously received from Borders when Borders ships back their books), B&N isn't looking to good, and Amazon is reporting much, much higher sales from their ebooks than they are from their print books. Print is in trouble. No one doubts that. Smaller print books are what today is called for. But since Wizards is so top heavy, smaller print runs keeps a company afloat better. 

I know it is counter intuitive, but it really does work out. If your last 3 books sold 1000 copies, reducing your print run to 1000 copies makes a greater profit than if you left it at 3000. Printing at 3000 just means that 2000 goto waste. So printing less means greater profits. But if 1000 copies doesn't make Wizards the profit they need, then they should leave niche to a 3rd party publisher. Niche's like adventures.

Conventional wisdom is that adventures never sold well. (Paizo proved that wrong. Ignore that for a second.) So Wizards shouldn't produce them. But systems (and settings) without support material like adventures and supplements sell terribly. They have an adventure planned for free RPG day (I'm assuming its for the Neverwinter Campaign Setting). But once the campaign setting book comes out, there are not going to be any more material for it (unless its on DDI, I have not clue). Why not license Neverwinter off to a 3rd party? The continued support would drive sales of the campaign setting and Wizards would get a share of every licensed book sold. Pretty sweet deal for them with minimal investment. And where is the best place to license such a valuable to: *your current 3rd party publishers.*

Treated like this, 3rd party publishers are your own version of American Idol (or the RPG Superstar). "If you do good enough and make us happy enough, you can get the Dark Sun license." That kind of deal. How many publishers would be working hard to produce 4E support material for that chance? I'd seriously consider it. That's more or less what my company is doing with Kingmaker, but I don't have an exclusive license for it. Any other company could do exactly what I am doing. So far, none have, lucky me. But if I had an exclusive license to work on one of Wizards' settings after WotC was done with it, I'd go for it. Why? *That license has value.* Sales are pretty much guaranteed as long as you treat the customers with respect and give them exactly what they want. That is more or less what Orcus was trying to argue to Scott Rouse back in the 3E->4E transition period. 

So why should WotC care about 3rd party companies, because of the very reason the OGL was created: because they can fill the gaps that are not profitable enough for WotC to fill. Currently that gap is looking more and more to be the print market. The GSL stops 3rd party companies from doing some of the less desirable things of 3E. That's fine. The days of 3E are not coming back. So Wizards need not fear a return of the BoEF and should stop treating 3rd party publishers like they are going to the moment WotC let up on them and instead treat them like partners in their continued success. 

If used properly, a 3PP can be a valuable asset. But it appears to me that the corporate culture is so ingrained there that they will continue to view them as adversaries instead of partners.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 8, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I asked both my local FLGSs, and in both cases, the person I asked laughed heartily before saying that Pathfinder was definitely outselling 4e. My suspicion is that without Hasbro's access to toy stores and mainstream bookstores, 4e would already be buried.



Well, Pathfinder has just recently released in 'final' form, while 4E seems to be undergoing certain, um, growing pains, so it's hardly surprising if Pathfinder's sales _right now_ are higher - a no-brainer, almost.



Morrus said:


> What about DDI, for example? Do people not realise that this is a core market for WotC? That it is clearly immensely profitable? That it is the direction WotC wants to move in? That their future involves you subscribing to their services rather than buying their products? And, despite complaints about the new CB etc., indications are that they are succeeding at this.



This is where the complaints in the 'Open Letter' seem to me somewhat germane.  Because WotC seem not only to be treating 3rd parties in a restrictive and controlling manner, but their customers, too.  In the short term, because they have, frankly, a far better game structure than anything based on 3.5 will ever be, they may get away with this.  But you can't fool all the people all the time, and I think it will turn sour, eventually, for them.

The key issue with the character builder, for example, is not just that it has flaws - it is that it is worse, in structure, scope and capabilities, than can be created relatively easily by a third party.  The only reason that a far better character builder has not been (legally) offered is because WotC can block it.  That is, long term, not at all a healthy market situation.  Some customers are fine with being directed and manipulated by their suppliers - but most will eventually get terminally fed up with it eventually, and then the backlash will hurt.


----------



## enrious (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> What about DDI, for example? Do people not realise that this is a core market for WotC? That it is clearly immensely profitable? That it is the direction WotC wants to move in? That their future involves you subscribing to their services rather than buying their products? And, despite complaints about the new CB etc., indications are that they are succeeding at this.




Again, speaking from a Pathfinder customer and not a 4e one (aside from the core 3 I bought at launch), I feel inclined to point out that not only is the subscriber model one that is a core of Wizards, but I'd also argue that the subscriber model is one of Paizo's core markets as well.

Sure, you can argue the pros and cons of the actual content of what the subscriptions give you, but the core model is virtually the same, in terms of that aspect of their business.

And it seems to be working for both.  And good for both; if it means that both stay in business and therefore both sets of customers win.

However, to keep on topic here, I fail to see how a given model that is working for one (or at least, appears to be working) automatically would benefit the other, either in degree or kind.

So yes, I'm behind Paizo, from the standpoint of their game system, from the materials they produce, the methods they produce them (open playtest), and just as much for their 3pp support.   Hey, as far as I'm concerned, they are the good guys.

However, that doesn't make Wizards the bad guys for not doing the same things.  They are doing things they way they believe will be successful for them.  They are providing products that people enjoy enough to buy and subscribe for.  You know what, that doesn't sound like bad guys to me.  Sure, I'm not their customer and I doubt I ever will be again.  But they aren't the goatee'd version of Paizo, IMO.

No one has yet made the case that good = 3pp support.  Nor has anyone made the case that evil = poor or nonexistant 3pp support.

In fact, I don't think anyone's made the case that in terms of Wizards, this is anything more than a private matter between a 3pp company or possibly 3pp publishers and Wizards.  I personally don't think you could defend the idea that a more generous GPL would be in the interest of 3pp and I'd laud it, but I've yet to see anything that even remotely suggests that it would for Wizards.  And a net gain is the only kind of gain that counts.  Heck, even breaking even would, if it demonstrably fostered the good will of the buying community.   I don't see any cases that have been put forth for that either.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Truthfully, I don't have to. Wizards is not the industry leader anymore and D&D isn't the market leader. My company supports the market leader (Pathfinder) which is held by the industry leader (Paizo).




A core rulebook in a single quarter vs. a supplement does not "the industry leader" make. It shows simply a biased side of the argument that you clearly belong to and a lack of objectively being able to view and put forth pertinent information. 

WotC maybe doesn't care about 3rd party support, and maybe why should they. The "open letter" is simply one party's rant about not getting catered to. WotC doesn't "wine & dine" their 3pps as some would like. It's a business decision. They make their decisions, as does Paizo. They take similar-yet-different  approaches to the market and for whatever reasons, informed yet speculative reasons that none of us are privy to but can guess at part of them. If one suits you better than the other, then that's the one you go with, end of story. The other doesn't "owe" anyone to do it the other way.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> DriveThruRPG's Top 100 Small Press contains as of time of posting:




Wait, so WotC doesn't cater to small press publishers, doesn't seek them actively (as far as we know) and doesn't "support" them as alternative sources for their material the way the ones listed do, and that's proof of an "industry leader"? It's an industry segment, but when one doesn't focus on that segment then yeah, they're not going to have large numbers there.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 8, 2011)

I will agree that Wizard doesn't have the greatest public image in the online venues where I hang. People adore Paizo as the cool kids, and view WotC as stodgy and lame.

So from a PR point of view, I think it'd be easy and cheap for them to recruit an author to write a monthly article (maybe part of Dragon, since actual issue size isn't an issue anymore) talking about new third-party products. Explain that certain things are too weird and niche for them to put in a book meant for gamers as a whole, but that they want to let people know about some other cool products out there.

Maybe have the occasional Q&A with 3pp folks. Just a thousand words a month, plus some graphics of cover images.

I wonder if maybe Hasbro has set policy that you're not supposed to use Hasbro websites to promote products from other companies. But I figure if they're allowed to do this, it would earn them some good-will and make them 'cooler,' as a previous poster mentioned.


Plus they really need to let people add their own content to the Character Builder. It's something a lot of gamers could use, that would as a fringe benefit would make it easier for 3pp.


----------



## enrious (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Much of the disagreement in my opinion comes down to this:
> 
> Wizards is not a stupid company.




I hear you.

But let's say that statement is wrong and for the sake of discussion Wizards is the most incompetent company on the face of the planet.

I do quibble with some of what you said (Borders, for example is selling off their inventories at substantial discount to customers instead of sending product back - that'd require shipping fees) but on the whole, I'd be happy to concede it.

Again, let's say that Wizards is the worst-run company in the history of the universe.  Right now She-who-shall-not-be-named has returned and is running things again.

Ok.

What's it to you?

Sure, let's say they fail tomorrow, in an epic dogs-living-with-cats-in-sin state, it's gone.  Done.  Over.

Will Paizo still have Pathfinder?  Will some other company jump on the opportunity created to try to fill the void?

Will 3pp such as yourself still have the OGL and d20SRD to express into print journeys that your mind can imagine?

Will you no longer be able to take others along on that journey?

You could argue that it would reduce your available revenue streams and I get it.  I also get that in case, those streams wouldn't exist if not for Wizards.  If they don't for you now, then no matter what happens to Wizards, you're unaffected.

But ok, let's say that you will be.  Why should any of that matter to Wizards?


Look, as a gamer and fan of D&D, I am saddened by what Wizards has done and am embiggened by Paizo.

But as a consumer, I know my place.

Stephen Crane said it best.

_A man said to the universe: 
“Sir, I exist!"
“However,” replied the universe, 
“The fact has not created in me 
“A sense of obligation.”_


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 8, 2011)

And slowly we spiral into the key issues.

While I didn't have a ton of sympathy for the letter..



Morrus said:


> That's an excellent summary.  It would appear that at present, the current management of WotC does not believe that the networking theory is correct - or, at the very least, disagrees with the extent of any such benefit.




As the halfling noted above, WotC could be wrong. The have been wrong about other things in recent years. 

3E, and the 3E PHB, were really, really successfull. Former insiders agree on this, industry watchers agree on this.  Some data has been presented on it. They coincided with the OGL. The OGL did not hurt them, at least much. Maybe the OGL helped. 3E plus d20 dominated the market like no game has in a long, long time. Again, I think this is "data", don't think its going out on a limb. 

Now, I _think_ that the decision to drop the OGL was rationalized by the d20 glut, but was really driven by people in R&D pissed off about other designers "stealing" from them. But I just think this, and base it on little dribs and drabs that have come out. 

I do know that 4E has not even come close to dominating the market like 3E. And its main competition is other kinds of D&D. Again, basically data. Not saying which sells more, but the market share situation, at least roughly, is pretty clear. 

I _think_ that if WotC had handed Green Ronin and Paizo an OGL type arangment early on, the market would be different today. Maybe there would need to be a mechanism to move certain 3rd party content into DDI...but I think that this would have helped WotC, reduced the market divisions, and they would make more money. 

But thats just what I _think_.


----------



## enrious (Mar 8, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Plus they really need to let people add their own content to the Character Builder. It's something a lot of gamers could use, that would as a fringe benefit would make it easier for 3pp.




As a player, I agree wholeheartedly - it'd benefit the players and incidently, 3pp.

But if I'm Wizards and considering this, my customers are the only ones I'd worry about, again unless I believe 3pp are good for me.


----------



## Frylock (Mar 8, 2011)

*Manipulation?*



> The only reason that a far better character builder has not been (legally) offered is because WotC can block it.  That is, long term, not at all a healthy market situation.  Some customers are fine with being directed and manipulated by their suppliers - but most will eventually get terminally fed up with it eventually, and then the backlash will hurt.




In any other industry, this wouldn't be seen as "manipulation," but rather "business." Figuratively speaking, you're saying that allowing third parties to create Burger King franchises is good for the Burger King brand. That's true; it is. Improved visibility is always a good thing. But what would you say if the franchisees said they shouldn't have to pay Burger King the franchise fee? That would be an arrogant request, don't you think? If Burger King didn't charge the franchise fee, they'd get free advertising, but so would the franchisee. The reality, though, is that "Burger King, Inc." are the ones with the market power because they're the ones that worked hard to create a marketable product. They absolutely should charge a franchise fee, and market forces allow for that. That's good business, not "manipulation."

Well, what are 3PPs asking of WotC? They're asking to be (analogously speaking) franchisees without a franchise fee (e.g., granting royalties, paying for the license), and then arrogantly insisting that WotC plug them at WotC's expense. So, a Burger King franchisee who's done *nothing* to create the brand jumps on the bandwagon, refuses to pay a franchise fee of any sort, and demands that "Burger King, Inc." pay money to promote the franchisee. Or are you actually suggesting that 3PP's would gladly pay for access to the CB or the ability to use SRD content? I doubt it. They already act with an arrogant sense of entitlement, so introducing a new fee wouldn't go over well. "Manipulation" would be replaced with "milking us for all we're worth."

As I said, in any other industry, what's been proposed by the open letter is arrogant. Either make your own place in the world or accept that someone else will always have the right to pull the strings. WotC doesn't owe you anything, and if your products are actually good, they should be able to stand on their own without relying on SRD content.

All of this falls on deaf ears of course, because, at their heart, these anti-WotC arguments are "damn the man" and/or anti-business arguments. There's been nothing on this thread to convince me otherwise.

EDIT: BTW, my points about the GSL from the earlier post apply to the Character Builder as well. There's nothing stopping you from creating a 3PP CB. You can easily do so without using copyrighted material. Of course, doing that level of work isn't what people want, or it would have been done already. People want to be able to do a tiny bit of work, building on the work of WotC, and make a ton of money off of it. This is true in both the print and online media. There's a lot more that goes into creating a game then creating a sourcebook for that game, and some of you can't seem to appreciate that.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> And slowly we spiral into the key issues.
> 
> While I didn't have a ton of sympathy for the letter..
> 
> ...




You're not showing causation, though.  I do not believe that 4E's sales are affected by the existence or lack of a license, nor by the quality of it.  

I believe that any trends are affected to a minuscule degree by the GSL, and that any prime movements in these trends are due to the products WotC is putting out themselves.

Whether we like it or not, the main compaint we see levelled at 4E is not about the GSL, it's that people don't like the game itself.  99% of people who play RPGs have never heard of the GSL; they had not heard of the OGL, either.  3PPs simply aren't a factor in this, in my opinion.

Given the premise that - anecdotes aside - none of us know any of these sales figures, if D&D is selling drastically less product it will be due to the game itself, not 3PPs or the lack of them.  It is anecdotally apparent that a lot of people prefer Pathfinder to 4E _as a game in itself, _and did not like the upgrade to 4E.  

So I return to my repeated statement - there is no evidence that altering the GSL would make any noticeable difference in 4E's sales figures.  WotC clearly don't believe it would, and all we have to go on is a parallel success of 3E along with the timing of the OGL; but I argue that one did not cause the other.  I think that market was ready for 3E, it needed 3E, and lots of 3E PHBs were sold.  And, further, that 99% of those who bought a 3 PHB had never heard of the OGL or knew of any 3PPs.

So, in absence of any such proof, there remains little to no motive for WotC to change its stance on this.  Especially given their apparent intent to move towards subscription services rather than actual product.

We should never mistake our little semi-informed (yet highly anecdotal) bubble on the web for the whole world.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

enrious said:


> I hear you.
> 
> But let's say that statement is wrong and for the sake of discussion Wizards is the most incompetent company on the face of the planet.




Hey they're not the government. 



enrious said:


> What's it to you?




I'd be sad, but beyond that I doubt it would affect me much.



enrious said:


> Why should any of that matter to Wizards?




I know I don't matter to Wizards. They owe me nothing. I know that. Doesn't mean my company and many other companies just like mine can't provide them a valuable service. 

It would be like if the world was enriched by the fact that we humans gave the world plastic. Ok. Bad example. It would be like if the world was enriched by us giving it pollution and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere... oh wait another bad example. Ummm... how about if the world was enriched by us removing the dodo bird... 

Ok, I've got it. 

The world is enriched by us giving the world *South Park*! Yes! That's my example I'm running with! The world is enriched with South Park!

Edit: sorry for the bunny trail. I just thought we all could use a little off topic humor to lighten the thread some.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

enrious said:


> What's it to you?




I think a lot of it boils down to this question.

 Those who feel WotC should treat 3pp like non-entities feel that its really none of our business to ask them to be nicer. 

Those who would like to see WotC act like they are partnered with their 3pp colleagues do need to answer the above question.

For myself, my answer is this: I'm a nice guy. I'd like to see WotC succeed and thrive. I'm not convinced their RPG department is exactly thriving at the moment. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like they are a department trying to find their way. I would also like to see 4e 3pp succeed and thrive and, Morrus apparently excepted, they are not. They seem to be diminishing from few to fewer yet. Even Open Design's latest project (Midgard) could not muster 4e support from the Patrons. Dragon Age beat out 4e for alternate ruleset to Pathfinder. 

And again, not to belabor the point, but Paizo's 3pp support stands in stark contrast to WotCs. Paizo goes well above and beyond what the OGL requires them to do in cooperating with 3pps. This earns them good will and the good will earns them business. 

Much of what is needed to make the relationship between WotC and those companies who want to support them (ENWorld excepted) better are just small little things. It doesn't take a whole lot to make people aware of the fact that you are aware of them and approve of them.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Frylock said:


> As I said, in any other industry, what's been proposed by the open letter is arrogant.




Except of course that there is another company who is doing exactly the things being requested. All the writer is asking is for WotC to follow the example set by another, successful, company.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2011)

Frylock said:


> In any other industry, this wouldn't be seen as  "manipulation," but rather "business." Figuratively speaking, you're  saying that allowing third parties to create Burger King franchises is  good for the Burger King brand. That's true; it is. Improved visibility  is always a good thing. But what would you say if the franchisees said  they shouldn't have to pay Burger King the franchise fee? That would be  an arrogant request, don't you think? If Burger King didn't charge the  franchise fee, they'd get free advertising, but so would the franchisee.  The reality, though, is that "Burger King, Inc." are the ones with the  market power because they're the ones that worked hard to create a  marketable product. They absolutely should charge a franchise fee, and  market forces allow for that. That's good business, not "manipulation."



Burger King may also want a fee license deal as an entry filter of quality control of its partners. Also Burger King should be controlling if partners conform to quality standards and this thing costs. So, a license fee or some deal of some kind of partnership contribution should be something to cover for this cost too.


----------



## Frylock (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Except of course that there is another company who is doing exactly the things being requested. All the writer is asking is for WotC to follow the example set by another, successful, company.




That's not an exception. It's a false comparison. You argue as if Paizo is in WotC's position. They aren't. WotC creation is the base of Paizo's success. They're in a different market position, and if it weren't for the license on which they rely to create Pathfinder, they probably wouldn't be so helpful to their 3PPs either.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 8, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Plus they really need to let people add their own content to the Character Builder. It's something a lot of gamers could use, that would as a fringe benefit would make it easier for 3pp.



I totally agree - and this is part of what I wrote about above.  But, by moving to a "we hold all the data" model they have painted themselves into a corner on this; how can they have _everyone_'s houserules in their database?  With the offline CB it would have been possible - easy, actually, as has been demonstrated, ahem.  But they appear to want not merely to offer product their customers will pay for, but to control those customers as part of the deal.

Since late 2008 I have been working with one of the (maybe the) fastest growing PC game producer and publisher, Paradox Interactive.  One of their differentiators with other producers is that, as a point of principle, they do not use DRM of any sort.  It's not that they like pirates - they hate them.  But they like paying customers more, and it seems to them that offering paying customers a product that is clearly and significantly worse than what they could get from hacked versions on torrents is just taking the mickey.  The key to beating the pirates, in the view of their CEO, Frederick Wester, is not offering cheaper (duh!), or trying to control your customers - it's offering better than the pirates ever could at a decent price.  It seems to work for PC games and it's at least worth a try for RPGs.

I know this has been all about how WotC treat customers, not 3pp - but I think the two are linked.  The 3pp, if they do their job well, are, after all, there to service WotC's customers; a genuine will to give customers the best product they can would naturally bring 3pp into the loop.  And giving customers the best product you can, at a fair price, seems stubbornly to remain the best way to achieve sustained success in business as far as I can see.


----------



## enrious (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I know I don't matter to Wizards. They owe me nothing. I know that. Doesn't mean my company and many other companies just like mine can't provide them a valuable service.




They disagree.  And honestly, since no one that I've seen post on this has any control over how/what Wizards does, we're basically just wasting disk space on the server.



> Edit: sorry for the bunny trail. I just thought we all could use a little off topic humor to lighten the thread some.




Heh, couldn't hurt.

I get the passion.  I don't think it's a bad thing from a publisher.  I think everyone else who's posted here and elsewhere on this subject has passion, as gamers.  Publishers and writers don't stop having gaming passion, or at least, if they do I'd hope they find something they are enthused about.

It's just that...none of us have any control over it.  I get the original Open Letter and why it was posted.  None of us wants Wizards/D&D to fail.  We want it to succeed.  We all just have different beliefs in how that happens and it's hard to know that at the end of the day, none of them matter.

Old anecdote of a baseball umpire once commenting that on a given pitch, there were 40,000 opinions on if it was a ball or a strike, but his was the only one that counted.

And that's Wizards, for better or for worse.

In any event, go write a book that greatly expands and improves on the kingdom and mass combat rules so I can support a PFRPG 3pp.

I feel for the 4e 3pp that agree with Open Letter.  I understand the people who disagree.

I just fail to see why years later we're all still so eager to play this as a zero-sum game.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Frylock said:


> ...if it weren't for the license on which they rely to create Pathfinder, they probably wouldn't be so helpful to their 3PPs either.




Maybe I am naive, but I like to think they are helpful because they genuinely love the game industry.  

They have acknowledged (publically and more than once) their thankfulness for the OGL and their desire to continue to promote the concept of open gaming. Like I said, their support of 3pp goes far beyond what the OGL requires, and those publishers who work with them are very appreciative of the fact.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 8, 2011)

enrious said:


> I just fail to see why years later we're all still so eager to play this as a zero-sum game.




I thought long and hard about this back in the 3E->4E transition and I finally figured out why we argue so. 

We play a game of heroes. In game, we become braver, stronger, more confident. We become the people that can overcome any adversity. We become great and powerful. We slay giants and we down demons. But the one demon we can't fight is the eventuality of time. Eventually time moves on and we get older, the world moves on without us. And a new edition comes with changes many of us were not comfortable with.  Like a beloved character that died and was turned into a ghoul, it pains us at a deep level. Suddenly that hero is seen by us as corrupted. Tainted. Finally we are saddened.

While Pathfinder was that new character that let us be that same hero again, we all know that somewhere deep down, the wound is still there. Someday, we hope, it will heal fully and we hope to never again to feel the pain that many felt when we first heard that the gnome being in the monster manual and a tiefling in the phb.

To the heroes in all of us. Long live the heroes.



enrious said:


> In any event, go write a book that greatly expands and improves on the kingdom and mass combat rules so I can support a PFRPG 3pp.




I go now and do exactly that. Good night everyone.


----------



## hutchback (Mar 8, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I know I don't matter to Wizards. They owe me nothing. I know that. Doesn't mean my company and many other companies just like mine can't provide them a valuable service.




And if someone would just give an example of what this "valuable service" is and how they feel it would help WotC profit either directly or indirectly, this discussion would be at a close.


----------



## enrious (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Maybe I am naive, but I like to think they are helpful because they genuinely love the game industry.




I'd like to think that too and happen to do so.

But, what if they felt it was negatively impacting them?  What if they felt that they'd lose money for the effort?

Would they still be so supportive?

Rhetorical question; it's a situation that I doubt even Paizo could answer (unless it's happening) because there are so many variables.

But I think the point could be made that even Paizo would have a threshold (even if that threshold was substantial).

Wizards too has a threshold.  It just seems that theirs is far sooner than Paizo's threshold, even if both are positive numbers.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 8, 2011)

DangerAbe said:


> The only reason for WotC to change is so that they can be "cooler" <snip>




A more appropriate word for "cooler" in the business world is "goodwill" which is actually, on occasion, accounted for as an asset by market analysts and actuaries. 




Morrus said:


> You're not showing causation, though. I do not believe that 4E's sales are affected by the existence or lack of a license, nor by the quality of it.




Morrus, I know I'm not SHOWING causation here, but do you believe that Necromancer games's 4e sales were not affected by the existence or lack of a license or the quality of it?

Second question for you Morrus...the sales of 4e WotBS that you are mentioning...is that basically the same as community supporter money? I mean, if I become a community supporter, would I be listed as a patron of WotBS? I ask because I have often waffled back and forth about becoming a supporter if only for solely 3e stuffs, gaming philosopy articles, etc. I would likely never use 4e WotBS, and if it were not included in the subscription at all, it would not in any way influence my decision to be a subscriber. If, however, you're using the numbers of people who have gone out and bought JUST the adventure path, then I'd say GOOD FOR YOU GUYS as you seem to be perhaps the only 3pp for 4e that is truly thriving. (I mean the accolades quite sincerely btw, I wouldn't want that to seem sarcastic in the slightest.)


Now my answer to the crux of the point(s). It seems two lines of discussion have emerged: 

1. *Is it better for 3pps to support pathfinder or 4e?* I'd say the answer to that overall has become fairly clear, apart from perhaps ENworld (I honestly think that's not true for other 3pps, including, sadly, Open Design, the only company besides WotC that I've bought 4e material from).

2. (The real question). *Is it a good idea for WotC to support 3pps?* I can't say I have enough info to provide more than anecdotal evidence and some "perspective driven" logic. WotC HAD me as a customer for 4e when I thought there would be robust 3pp support. I hate WotC adventures by and large (though the do put out some gems on occasion). I find their settings fairly generic/boring personally (apart from more extreme settings like Ravenloft and Dark Sun). So, for me to switch, I needed to have good adventure and setting support for 4e. So far, it is few and far between. I own the 4e adventures from Open Design, and I already own WotBS in 3e, so I don't feel the need to purchase it again (though reviews certainly suggest that it, as well, would be a great purchase should our group convert to 4e.)

So, here are three _possible_ benefits to WotC to give 3pps support:

1. Goodwill. Many people don't like WotC right now, and PAIZO has a ton of goodwill. Sure, lots of people don't decide on what to buy based on goodwill, but some DO. Heck, there's not really that much I want from ENworld at the moment, but I keep almost purchasing a membership based _solely upon goodwill_. (To Morrus, the main barrier is actually the monthly sub of $3...I'd more happily pay an annual fee of $36.)

2. Draw in people that want to play other worlds. If the producers of, say Oathbound, or Arcanis, or Iron Kingdoms thought that they could make money in 4e, they just might draw in some sales for themselves and more importantly _draw in customers_ to switch to this newfangled 4e thingy.

3. Market perceptions. There has been (and will likely continue to be) debate about if PAIZO is getting to be as big of a market force as WotC. We've all seen the government carefully use the word "recession" and never "depression" because people's market perceptions affect spending. Further, "market leader" can mean much more than "total sales" in terms of volume or profit. Market leader can mean total assets (which includes goodwill and partnership). Market leader can mean that they are actually leading others; that are others _following_ them. We are beginning to see WotC as no longer the market leader in that sense. 

Market leader can also mean "power to control the market". I posit that, as things are now, should WotC change to 5e in two years that they will have very very few 3pps moving with them. This will likely affect the number of freelancers interested in learning the system as well as affect goodwill and customer interest in 3pp IP as "not synergistic" with their system. On the other hand, should, in two years, PAIZO release Second Edition Pathfinder, I would imagine quite a few of the PATHFINDER OGL companies will follow.


I'll end the post there, with the admission that these are economic concepts set in sound economic and actuarial modelling (not of this market, but generally). They are not data, but they might be something for people at WotC to think a bit more deeply about (with their own data that they do have).


----------



## Frylock (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Maybe I am naive, but I like to think they are helpful because they genuinely love the game industry.
> 
> They have acknowledged (publically and more than once) their thankfulness for the OGL and their desire to continue to promote the concept of open gaming. Like I said, their support of 3pp goes far beyond what the OGL requires, and those publishers who work with them are very appreciative of the fact.




You're almost certainly naive, but I can't prove it, although the terms of the 3.5 license back up my view, not yours. We'll probably never know what Paizo would do if they created their own gaming system because Paizo probably never will during out lifetimes. Until they do, Paizo is still standing on the shoulders of what WotC created (bound by the license), and it's just unfair to compare their position to WotC's.

You just don't seem to appreciate the work that goes into producing the original product v. some add-on. WotC spends a ton of money and effort creating game systems, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. WotC says, "No problem. Go ahead and use our stuff without having to pay us a royalty that's standard elsewhere in print media. All we ask is that the integrity of the game is maintained, so please abide by the terms of this free license here." The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"

WTF? Really people. Grow up.

Here's a more tangible example. I write a book on the Mafia. I spend 6 months researching the Mafia, maybe even hanging out with some mobsters. Besides the risk of hanging out with mobsters, it's a huge investment of my time and money. I then do something creative writing a book about a fictitious mobster's rise and fall. Then you come around and say, "It'll help your visibility if I make copies of your book and sell them myself royalty-free." Assuming I'm dumb enough to fall for this, don't you think I should demand you not change the text (i.e., maintain integrity)?  Do you think I should spend my own money to market your web shop?

In any other area, this seems ridiculous, but people expect WotC to do exactly that.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> You're not showing causation, though.  I do not believe that 4E's sales are affected by the existence or lack of a license, nor by the quality of it.
> 
> I believe that any trends are affected to a minuscule degree by the GSL, and that any prime movements in these trends are due to the products WotC is putting out themselves.
> 
> Whether we like it or not, the main compaint we see levelled at 4E is not about the GSL, it's that people don't like the game itself.  99% of people who play RPGs have never heard of the GSL; they had not heard of the OGL, either.  3PPs simply aren't a factor in this, in my opinion.




But the market does not consist of a big pile of people, a certain percentage of whom will simply buy your product if it appeals to them. The product has to get to them. I can think of numerous ways the GSL is relevant. For one, it is a known issue to hardcore hobbyists, who are disproportionately GMs, who disproportinately determine the playing landscape in their neighborhoods. For another, all the people who are not producing 4e product are not contributing to the cornucopia that will attract players to 4e. Conversely, if those people choose to produce for 3e instead, players will be drawn to 3e. 

4e is 4e, but the people who might be willing to give it a go is a nonzero number. And further, in the long run, it would be ideal to keep 3pp and other major hobbyists on the happy side when it comes time to update the product line again. 

Have you seen the movie Hero? A ruler has made the decision that, whatever the cost in blood, in the long-run, China will be more peaceful if united. Another character cautions him not to fail, else the blood will only have brought pain. The current state of 4e is a pretty good demonstration of what happens when you try to annihilate opposition, and fail. Whatever the personal feelings of the D&D team toward gamers, D&D in general, and 3pps, the business decision was made to destroy the third party industry as it was. But it was an overreach.


----------



## enrious (Mar 8, 2011)

Frylock said:


> You just don't seem to appreciate the work that goes into producing the original product v. some add-on. WotC spends a ton of money and effort creating game systems, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. WotC says, "No problem. Go ahead and use our stuff without having to pay us a royalty that's standard elsewhere in print media. All we ask is that the integrity of the game is maintained, so please abide by the terms of this free license here." The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"




Wait.

Earlier it was argued and pointed out that people are publishing _without_ abiding by that license. 

Sure, I don't think they're asking for anything in return, but where's the "standard elsewhere in print media" if Kenzer et al aren't paying a penny for licensing nor are they abiding by the GSL?

If that's true, how much did Wizards create for other's to shoulder-stand in the first place?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 8, 2011)

To Matt James and/or Frylock:

Could one (or both) of you please cut and paste, from the article where the writer either "demonizes" or calls WotC the equivalent of "Jackholes"?



Matt James said:


> <snip> The author expects WotC to do all of this and demonizes them in the same breath. <snip>






Frylock said:


> <snip> The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"
> 
> WTF? Really people. Grow up. <snip>





Because, I gotta say, when I read it, it was more like he was asking for some help, and specifically stating that they were under no obligation to give it.


If you can find it and quote it, then great, but if not, please stop characterizing him as a "whiner" who is in some way saying *anything* negative about WotC.

(EDIT: added relevant quotes.)


Further EDIT:



Matt James said:


> <snip> Furthermore, I can't help but feel the open letter is more about whining than anything else. <snip>




Can you clarify where he is whining? I personally see a difference between whining and asking for help (even if the person being asked for help has no obligation to provide it).


----------



## Frylock (Mar 8, 2011)

*Market Destruction?*



pawsplay said:


> Whatever the personal feelings of the D&D team toward gamers, D&D in general, and 3pps, the business decision was made to destroy the third party industry as it was. But it was an overreach.




How can you say the 3PP market was destroyed (or was even attacked)? The GSL's existence runs contrary to that claim. All they did was pull back on it (from what they had in 3.5), which was probably a smart decision. 

As for the online CB, though, it's clear that there is no longer any support for 3PPs. However, when the online CB, people we're whining that it didn't have an import/export function. When I (not a WotC insider!) suggested that it would probably be out with the very first update, people laughed at me saying it would take at least 6 months, if they'd ever do so. After the first update, I heard no apologies for the rants.

Don't assume that the online CB won't ever support 3PPs. If WotC has expressly said it wouldn't, fine; I missed that announcement. Until I read it, I'm not going to assume it.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> FLGS owners are not industry consultants. Half of them can't even run a store properly, let alone make any type of accurate industry analysis. Even those who are competent do not have access to any data but what they themselves are selling. Anecdotes are not data, and making business decisions based on the opinion of one's FLGS owner is... well, it's not something I would do, let's say.




"The plural of anecdotes is data." I have heard the opposite statement misquotation you have paraphrased, but it is a misquotation and not accurate. Absolutely, data is created by taking multiple anecdotes, compiling them, and looking for compelling relationships. Clearly, the data used in anthropology involves lots of anecdotes. And truly, repeating an experiment is an anecdote. If anecdotes are not data, it is impossible to demonstrate the mixing baking soda with vinegar yields fizz.

I am really starting to wonder what you would regard as persuasive.
- Apparently, numerous accounts by FLGS, which more often than not indicate Pathfinder is winning, are not persuasive
- Sales rankings on various neutral web sites are not persuasive
- The D&D team revamping their product line, going on a 
PR offensive, and writing hippie love blog posts about everyone playing D&D are not persuasive

I ask you, do these things together not suggest some kind of possible relationship to you? Without arguing about causality, can you not infer that 4e is not dominating Pathfinder, and may be surpassed by it?



> What about DDI, for example? Do people not realise that this is a core market for WotC? That it is clearly immensely profitable? That it is the direction WotC wants to move in? That their future involves you subscribing to their services rather than buying their products? And, despite complaints about the new CB etc., indications are that they are succeeding at this.




I'm sure it's working out for them in many respects, especially having a constant revenue stream, but I think what they are doing is heading for the rocks. If they succeed in bringing creativity in-house, as a subscription, closing out other channels, there will be a fan revolt (if one is not already underway). Meanwhile, the segment that is content to remain relatively dependent is probably a more mainstream group in terms of commercial behavior. Who is going to DM for those people when the really creative types head for warmer climes? You will be left with a stubborn few 4e hackers, people who prefer the 4e engine enough to deal with its annoying in-laws, and those few are also your recruiting pool for design. 



> That's fine by me! You write your Pathfinder products, I'll happily tell people about them. But I'll write 4E products and enjoy a large market share because I'm happy with the GSL as it is. Everyone's happy!




Clearly, not EVERYONE is happy. You know what makes me unhappy? Having to treat my PDFs of old TSR products as gingerly as the real things, lest I lose them in a computer crash. And this, I am told, has to do with piracy, which in term has to do with why the 4e books are not available as downloads but are available via the DI. Even though 4e has only a peripheral relationship to my gaming, WotC's actions have had a significant effect on my enjoyment of things I have already paid for. They have a significant effect on a community I value.

Clearly, Chris Dias is not happy. And that is someone who apparently has tried to "play ball." Fat lot of appreciation people have gotten for that. Others, too, including some pro-WotC stalwarts.

I'm glad you're enjoying your AP business at present. I just hope you understand that while you are enjoying your happy little farm, things are going on that could significantly (scratch that, WILL significantly) change the landscape in ways no one can foresee clearly. At some point, the AP market will become more saturated, and it's tough for me to imagine what the follow-up act to that would be. It may be that you're saying you're happy to ride the wave, and in five years, when the well dries up, you're closing down shop. Which is fine, if that's how you see it. 

In my opinion, you're choosing not to see things that you don't want to see. I mean that sincerely, and not in any way to question the depth of your thinking on this, which has obviously been considerable in positioning yourself to do what you want do do. And you know your business better than anybody. But sincerely... the times they are a-changin'.


----------



## Frylock (Mar 8, 2011)

*False Arguments*



Aberzanzorax said:


> To Matt James and/or Frylock:
> 
> Could one (or both) of you please cut and paste, from the article where the writer either "demonizes" or calls WotC the equivalent of "Jackholes"?




This is what I said (and you quoted!).



			
				Me said:
			
		

> The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"




Making false arguments puts you outside the scope of fair and honest debate. The "jackhole" comment *clearly* was not a quote or paraphrase of that particular letter but rather my observations of the industry as a whole. Quoting everyone I've every heard speak or write on the subject would be space-prohibitive, and you know that. Thus, I summarized.

As for the whining accusation, I'm not sure exactly what I said before, but I will gladly make that claim now. I'm not going to copy the entire letter here. It's all a lot of whining directed at a company that will never read it.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2011)

Frylock said:


> You're almost certainly naive, but I can't prove it, although the terms of the 3.5 license back up my view, not yours.




I admit that I am not a lawyer. So can you tell me which portions of the OGL require:
1) Mentioning 3pp material in newsletters...
2) Mentioning 3pp material on the store blog...
3) Incorporating 3pp material into adventures...
4) Providing a forum area specifically for 3pps to advertise in, free of charge...

I missed those sections. 



Frylock said:


> You just don't seem to appreciate the work that goes into producing the original product v. some add-on.




As you say, I'm obviously naive about human nature. I try to assume the best of people and avoid attacks on character and knowledge as I have trouble discerning life experiences across an electronic medium with people I have never actually met. 

Despite those shortcomings in my character, however, I think I can safely say I have a pretty fair idea, at this point, of the amount of work that goes into the average 3pp PDF and print product.  Granted, a standard ruleset makes it easier, but most of us are not just recycling material and slapping a new cover on it. I think I can also make an educated guess on the amount of work needed to put out a much larger book than those I have had the privilege of working on.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 8, 2011)

Frylock said:


> How can you say the 3PP market was destroyed (or was even attacked)? The GSL's existence runs contrary to that claim. All they did was pull back on it (from what they had in 3.5), which was probably a smart decision.




Why don't you go Google some old posts. Whatever I and others said then is fresher than anything I might say now.


----------



## Frylock (Mar 9, 2011)

*More False Arguments*



Wicht said:


> I admit that I am not a lawyer. So can you tell me which portions of the OGL require: [snip]




Irrelevant. The OGL forces a 3PP market on other 3PPs. These additional steps are best viewed as making the best of a bad situation. If you have to have a 3PP market, you might as well develop it, and if you can convince people you're doing it out of the goodness of your heart in the process, all the better. 

I'm not a marketing expert. Maybe the 3PPs industry is good for WotC, but I'm not one to argue with the only company to enjoy their level of success due entirely to their own work (and those of their predecessors). I'm guessing neither are you. EDIT: But it's fun to speculate, so keep it up! 



Wicht said:


> As you say, I'm obviously naive about human nature.




I didn't write that. I suggested that you were probably naive when it comes to the business end of it, and your posts suggest that. You don't seem to recognize the only purpose to for-profit businesses: profit. It's a profit achieved by *effectively* giving your customer base a good product, but in the end it's about profit or your shareholders/owners pull the plug. If you're so successful that you can afford to be charitable, that's great, but 3PPs aren't charities. They're for-profit businesses.



Wicht said:


> I try to assume the best of people and avoid attacks on character and knowledge as I have trouble discerning life experiences across an electronic medium with people I have never actually met.




Interesting accusation, considering that I made no statement that even addressed your character (i.e., "moral or ethical quality" in this context), and considering that this is exactly what WotC is facing from people on your side of the argument. I don't hear anyone on my side of the argument vilifying Paizo.

So, should I accuse you of attacking my character because you said I was the sort of person that would attack yours? 

EDIT: If you really think I'm attacking your worth as a human being, why do you even care? As you state, such an accusation would be based on ignorance, as I don't know you. Don't let internet trolls get to you. They don't matter. If, on the other hand, you can't handle someone addressing your arguments, then you need to avoid debate in general.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 9, 2011)

Frylock said:


> You don't seem to recognize the only purpose to for-profit businesses: profit.




The fact that are any RPG publishers at all demonstrates that you are wrong.


----------



## Frylock (Mar 9, 2011)

*Time to Move on*



pawsplay said:


> Why don't you go Google some old posts. Whatever I and others said then is fresher than anything I might say now.




Because I have better things to do. As a native East Coaster, I love arguing, so I couldn't resist, but I've spent too much time on this thread already.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 9, 2011)

Frylock said:


> Making false arguments puts you outside the scope of fair and honest debate.




WHEW! Glad I didn't do anything like that!



Frylock said:


> The "jackhole" comment *clearly* was not a quote or paraphrase of that particular letter but rather my observations of the industry as a whole. Quoting everyone I've every heard speak or write on the subject would be space-prohibitive, and you know that. Thus, I summarized.
> 
> As for the whining accusation, I'm not sure exactly what I said before, but I will gladly make that claim now. I'm not going to copy the entire letter here. It's all a lot of whining directed at a company that will never read it.




No, it was not so clear. Not at all.

While you never specifically stated that they were whining, accusing them of calling names while asking for help does amount to whining.


Perhaps I misunderstood you, that you meant the entire industry said that. 

But, at minimum I *CLEARLY* believe you were claiming that the author was ALSO saying "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!" 



So, I ask again, where in the article does it say anything amounting to Wizards IN ANY WAY being jerks/jackholes/ or any single negative thing?


Or perhaps you'd prefer to impugn my character further by putting words and "intentional misrepresentations" into my mouth because your claims are unfounded, and neither this tone, nor any words to back it up exist in the article?



EDIT: On the other hand, perhaps I am dense. Perhaps what you (clearly) meant was that the industry as a whole does this all the time, but it was utterly not present in the article, and were making a clear non-sequitir, utterly irrelevant to this article, despite this thread being about the article.


----------



## ChristianLindke (Mar 9, 2011)

Were I Wizards of the Coast, I too might be wary of supporting 3pp.  Their past experience with 3pp wasn't the best for them.  Let's say that every rumor of Paizo's success, and overtaking of Wotc, are true.  If they are true than the OGL was a massive failure for them as all it did was to create a major competitor who now uses their IP, under license, but who sells better than they do and pays no royalties.

The current GSL is pretty forgiving and it doesn't cost a dime.  I have to say that I am an avid pdf purchaser on RPGNow and I haven't seen a product for 4e offered that I want to buy.  Otherwise I would have purchased it.  WotC's product line has some holes.  I became a subscriber of this site because it fills one of those holes.  I look forward to Santiago like you wouldn't believe.

I am looking for 3pp 4e stuff that is of high quality -- Green Ronin/Paizo equivalent quality -- but I have been burned by the d20 glut and all of the garbage that came out under that license.  

Please feel free to promote you own products so that I can find out about them.  I'd love to buy them if they meet my needs.


----------



## Zil (Mar 9, 2011)

Frylock said:


> You don't seem to recognize the only purpose to for-profit businesses: profit. It's a profit achieved by *effectively* giving your customer base a good product, but in the end it's about profit or your shareholders/owners pull the plug. If you're so successful that you can afford to be charitable, that's great, but 3PPs aren't charities. They're for-profit businesses.




Excuse me?  The only reason for being in business is for profit?   Sure, I agree that if you are always losing money you won't stay in business long, but there are many other factors that make people go into business (and stay in business) than just profit.  If profit is all that is important, then you shouldn't see much in the way of RPG companies at all.  There are much better ways to earn a return on investment than our little hobby.


----------



## Emberion (Mar 9, 2011)

> Originally Posted by Morrus
> Well, yes. If I spent $30,000 developing a Pathfinder adventure path and attempted to compete with Paizo's core market, I'd lose $30,000 and the site would close. It would be utterly stupid of me to try to develop adventure paths for a system that is saturated with them rather than a system which has an obvious gap for them. If I spend the same developing a 4E adventure path, I sell product by the bucketload. It's a clear no-brainer.




I have a very hard time believing that. Not that it isn't true, but I find that fact to be mind-numbingly improbable.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 9, 2011)

ChristianLindke said:


> Were I Wizards of the Coast, I too might be wary of supporting 3pp.  Their past experience with 3pp wasn't the best for them.





That's a myth.  Creating the OGL brought huge success for WotC.  Turning away from the OGL and creating an environment where other companies might strike out on their own wasn't even a failure for WotC.  WotC's past experience with 3PPs is what helped bring back D&D, as a successful new product, from the financial ruin TSR experienced in the Nineties.


What might bring WotC failure is the manner in which they respond to a changing market with diverse tastes in an age when every potential tabletop RPGamer can be reached by anyone with a good idea well executed and an Internet connection.  Certainly WotC is not any more entitled to success than any other game company. 


What might have something to do with Paizo's ability to compete so directly with WotC is the work experience many Paizo employees share on their resume.  The WotC business model that includes built in (near-)yearly layoffs coupled with a mistaken belief that a rule system doesn't need to focus enough on supporting adventure material is probably what you want to look toward as creating an environment in which WotC could see failure.


If there is one good reason why WotC should take the open letter to heart it would be so they could foster an environment in which enough low-profit margin adventure products could reach the market and prevent 4E fans from looking elsewhere for materials sorely lacking from their own product lines (it's the number one complaint I see from diehard 4E fans regarding WotC).


----------



## Nagol (Mar 9, 2011)

Frylock said:


> How can you say the 3PP market was destroyed (or was even attacked)? The GSL's existence runs contrary to that claim. All they did was pull back on it (from what they had in 3.5), which was probably a smart decision.




The closest I can remember to an attack was the clause in the original GSL that forbade the use of the OGL by the same publisher.  From memory, there was some discussion as to whether the forbiddance only extended to product with the same brand or if we'd see publishers needing to create secondary legal entities to continue publishing their already existing titles.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 9, 2011)

I’m still pondering what to take away from this thread.  Some of the thoughts & questions that are running through my head:

1. Does anyone else find it ironic that just a few weeks after Mearls starts a “big tent of D&D” series of articles, we’ve got people actually using the argument of _“Why should WotC care about 3PPs?”_ as a counterpoint to the Open Letter?

2. Morrus likes having less competition with 4e & getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie.  I get the less competition part, but wouldn’t you want WotC to care about 3PP?  Your posts seem to indicate that you think they are right to not care.  To this non-3PP, this seems shortsighted.  What happens if/when a new edition surfaces without a GSL (or its equivalent) and you can’t publish for that smaller pie?  Small pie just went to no pie.  Or do you then (or perhaps already?) publish “around the GSL”?

3. Morrus dismisses other RPG Internet outlets like DTRPG as insignificant, yet touts his site’s sales experiences as relevant.  Given that none of the companies in question publish sales figures, any source of data is imperfect.  However, given the methodology laid out by Jon, he tried to do his homework with the tools available.  How else do would one go about it?

4. We’ve got 3PPs chiming in that their own sales indicate that their PF products are outselling their 4e products?  Has this site devolved to the state where we’re calling them liars because their view of the market isn’t one the opposing view likes?

5. Whether it was sales in a single quarter, a true shift in the market, or a statistical anomaly, it’s still commendable that Pathfinder is a success.  After all, wasn’t this the RPG that was building off the edition that had drowned in glut and achieved Has-Been status?  _This conversation shouldn’t even have been possible_, and at the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG, was often stated to *be* impossible.

6. While I still maintain that 4e is selling well and DDI is making WotC buckets of money, given the cancellation of miniatures, reduction in publishing schedule, Mearls’ new articles, and the inability for a week to go by without a “What if WotC did this” or “D&D should be that”, etc., _something_ is not meeting expectations.  There’s a saying that’s considered near-gospel in business, “perception is reality”.  Well-run businesses know that it’s easier to keep an existing customer than it is to find a new customer.  WotC seems to understand that they’ve got a perception problem.  If a stronger 3PP base helps either customer perception or drive additional 4e sales (or even both!), how is this bad?

7. If the D&D brand is so valuable, if D&D is the 800 lb. gorilla of the industry, and if WotC has talent and budgets that other RPG companies can only dream of having, why *can’t* they make adventures that are considered the best in the market?  If they can't why don't they want 3PPs to do so?


----------



## renau1g (Mar 9, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> That's a myth.  Creating the OGL brought huge success for WotC.  Turning away from the OGL and creating an environment where other companies might strike out on their own wasn't even a failure for WotC.  WotC's past experience with 3PPs is what helped bring back D&D, as a successful new product, from the financial ruin TSR experienced in the Nineties.




That's a myth. 3e's ruleset as produced by WotC was better than any ruleset before it, the product was far superior and they had right product at the right time. Their decision to allow 3PP's did much to dilute their product and damage the brand, see Book of Erotic Fantasy. (see we can all throw around unfounded comments).


----------



## renau1g (Mar 9, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> 6. While I still maintain that 4e is selling well and DDI is making WotC buckets of money, given the cancellation of miniatures, reduction in publishing schedule, Mearls’ new articles, and the inability for a week to go by without a “What if WotC did this” or “D&D should be that”, etc., _something_ is not meeting expectations.  There’s a saying that’s considered near-gospel in business, “perception is reality”.  Well-run businesses know that it’s easier to keep an existing customer than it is to find a new customer.  WotC seems to understand that they’ve got a perception problem.  If a stronger 3PP base helps either customer perception or drive additional 4e sales (or even both!), how is this bad?
> 
> 7. If the D&D brand is so valuable, if D&D is the 800 lb. gorilla of the industry, and if WotC has talent and budgets that other RPG companies can only dream of having, why *can’t* they make adventures that are considered the best in the market?  If they can't why don't they want 3PPs to do so?




6. This is the interwebz, since I've been following this site (long before I signed up) there's been a thread a week saying “What if WotC did this” or “D&D should be that”. They've changed their distribution model to a more profitable one (ddi) and reduced print products they had lower returns on (likely too low to be satisfactory). I fail to see how 3PP's will help customer perception, as from what I've seen people will always compare them as the evil ones to Paizo's white hat. 

7. WotC has never, ever, made the best adventures in the industry. Why can't they? Not sure, they've mentioned before (IIRC) that adventures don't tend to sell to well so you focus on the largest part of the market (the players) and (in the past) hire someone to do it for you (Paizo) or many someones (currently the freelancers) to do it. Either way, you focus on the highest ROI (as any rational company does).  Honestly, Paizo makes awesome adventures and their products are more interesting to read (they provide tons of information about the background a PC would never find out). Beyond them, I've not seen any other 3PP make a consistently strong product offering that WotC would require.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 9, 2011)

Frylock said:


> Interesting accusation, considering that I made no statement that even addressed your character (i.e., "moral or ethical quality" in this context....




Actually, I said, "character and *knowledge*."

You judged me to be naive, which is a reflection of character. You can quibble about the definition of character if you want, but as I was the one paying the word for the work, it actually meant something beyond morality and ethics when I used it. 

You also have told me I don't appreciate the work that goes into making a product (_though you are wrong in your assumption_). And now you have gone on to say that I don't appreciate the business of business is profit (_And again you are wrong about what I don't appreciate_). Those both seem to be a judgment on my level of knowledged and expertise, made without actually knowing me or my experiences. Though maybe you did not mean them that way, they come across as fairly deragatory from this perspective. 

I actually do appreciate that businesses are in it for the profit. Without profit they will end up closing down. Where I disagree is in thinking one must be cut-throat in order to make a profit. I think Paizo is doing very nicely. I don't think they percieve the OGL to be a bad situation at all. I know that I personally think the concept of Open Gaming to be a boon to both creativity and expanding the market base.  I think the cut-throat approach, in this particular market (gaming), is the wrong approach and fails to appreciate the nature of the business. 

And, to answer another point, I respond because 1) I'm trying to have a conversation and 2) I was trying to politely suggest you needed to tone down your rhetoric without coming right out and calling you on being insulting. I will, however, conclude that point as having been made and return to the process of engaging in a conversation.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 9, 2011)

renau1g said:


> That's a myth. 3e's ruleset as produced by WotC was better than any ruleset before it, the product was far superior and they had right product at the right time. Their decision to allow 3PP's did much to dilute their product and damage the brand, see Book of Erotic Fantasy. (see we can all throw around unfounded comments).





The people in charge of WotC at the time were the ones to herald the success of the game and the OGL.  The ones who claimed it was problematic and tried to distance WotC from it are the ones who have WotC in the boat they are in now.  Whether the ruleset was superior or not is a matter of taste, largely, but their former success is a fact and well-founded, regardless.


----------



## DiasExMachina (Mar 9, 2011)

Wow…I go to bed, wake up, go to work, and come back to this.  I'll try to keep on topic and pass over the GSL/copyright/OGL/Paizo conversations going on here.  I'll also be copying from responses I have made elsewhere (full disclosure).

This whole thing started because I received a call from a writer saying his 4E project had been dropped at Alea (I have mistakenly said Mongoose).  Seeing how Paizo treats their 3rd party companies, I was hoping Wizards could do the same.  From my perspective, there are two important issues to understand. The first regards product penetration.  One of the leading factors attributed to the success of 3.0/3.5 what its open source content, resulting in every major publisher releasing a book under the D&D framework. Back then, you could copy the entire rule system; with the GSL, you can only reference, consequently forcing any consumer to own the core books to utilize a 3rd party supplement. By encouraging and supporting content, you allow a greater saturation of the 4th edition market, increasing the number of 4th edition books on a shelf—books that all require the same core volumes produced by one publisher.

The second issue involves mending and improving customer opinion. It will go a long way with both players and publishers if WOTC reached across with that olive branch. Consider the following: this open letter had been on LivingDice for nearly a week with not a single post. One mention by Morrus on the news page at EnWorld, and it exploded. Imagine the impact of Wizards doing the same thing, adding news content for GSL products.  Creating a news page or running a blog for 3rd party content should not be a significant dent in WOTC’s advertising budget.  As for the topic about a handout, I state at the beginning that this is about mutualism.  But let's assume I was seeking charity.  Every company sets aside money to improve its public image. It could be a charity or the sponsoring of a sports team. Supporting 3rd party companies improves public image…and they wouldn’t even need to attend a game.  WOTC has the traffic and the original franchise.  There is nothing I can do on my end to measure with that.  I can't create a website and suddenly expect a million hits in a day.  To prove my resolve, I'll say this: if WOTC were to allow such a blog or news page on their website, talking about 3rd party companies and their products, I would gladly write it for free, and I would do so for a month before even mentioning me work or my company.  Offer me the soapbox and I'll shout how awesome 3rd party products are.    

This thread and others have almost made an assumption that DEM is hurting, or planning on jumping ship.  DEM made the decision early to embrace 4E, well before Pathfinder had ever existed. My group prefers and endorses 4E; they won’t touch Pathfinder.  This is not an opinion I reflect.  I have nothing against Paizo.  I don't hate it.  I have no opinion whatsoever.  I love the art.  I have talked with several of its writers, including Monte Cook.  We at DEM prefer 4th Edition.  I liked what it offered.  And as Morrus eloquently and humorously put it, there is little competition here.  When Amethyst was released for 3.5, we could claim no fertile ground; it had been tilled to salt by dozens of publishers before it. With 4E, it was a new field, ready to sow.  Paizo has not reached out to DEM and I doubt they will, as we can bring nothing to the 3rd edition landscape that has not already been done.  If they did, I would propose adopting it to my other writers.  But this is the same group that hates Essentials as well, a series I actually enjoy.  The fact they hate it didn't stop me from making Essentials classes for Amethyst in the next book.

Companies like Goodman and EnWorld have no issues promoting their own products to a wide base.  Smaller companies have miniscule budgets to compete.  Neither situation asks for a handout.  We don't want Wizards "to do our job for us"; this assumes some of these companies can do so—like we could if we got off our asses.  Anyone who knows me knows I work constantly.  From LivingDice to CombatAdvantage, From Here to There, and I've got three game books being written simultaneously (Evolution, Factions, and Ultramodern4).  The first Amethyst 3.5 book lost several thousand dollars, due mostly by its release a month before 4E.  I keep at it because I love it, as do all who write for RPGs.  I wouldn't accuse myself or any other company as being lazy.

The suggestion in the original letter is to encourage a mutually beneficial relationship, to create a community as Paizo has.  I refuse to take the alarmist view that the GSL was originally designed to kill 3PP.  Someone at WOTC had their heart in the right place (Scott).  By actually entering the community or creating a community to share with companies supporting them, it encourages more of us move under their umbrella.  There is almost a Windows / Mac parable at work here, with history repeating between the Apple OS and Android.  Evolution is coming out regardless of this letter.  Ultramodern4 will follow.  This is not a death rattle.  I'm not going anywhere (looks around the room)…at least not yet.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 9, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> "The plural of anecdotes is data." I have heard the opposite statement misquotation you have paraphrased, but it is a misquotation and not accurate. Absolutely, data is created by taking multiple anecdotes, compiling them, and looking for compelling relationships. Clearly, the data used in anthropology involves lots of anecdotes. And truly, repeating an experiment is an anecdote. If anecdotes are not data, it is impossible to demonstrate the mixing baking soda with vinegar yields fizz.



No, no matter how many anecdotes you compile, it's not data.  It's just a collection of anecdotes.

Rigor and control in obtaining data is crucial.  Anecdotes have neither, no matter how many of them you compile.  Methodology is everything; without proper methodology, all of your data is suspect.  An experiment is not an anecdote; it's a strictly controlled set of measurements and conditions.

For example, I can find two hundred parents who would tell me their kids became autistic after the MMR vaccine.  I can also find two hundred people who would swear that homeopathic remedies cured their cancer.  In both cases, it would be two hundred anecdotes.  Neither would ever be data in any scientific sense of the term - just starting points for potential controlled experiments.

-O


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Mar 9, 2011)

Obryn said:


> No, no matter how many anecdotes you compile, it's not data. It's just a collection of anecdotes.
> 
> For example, I can find two hundred parents ... just starting points for potential controlled experiments.
> 
> -O




200 parents of vaccinated kids is also statisically meaningless, which is what you're missing, there. There are millions if not literally billions of vaccinated kids.

200 gaming companies - be they FLGS or companies that sell .PDFs - all saying they were seeing Pathfinder radically outsell / outperform 4th Edition, would be a pretty significant chunk (if not darn near all) of the RPG industry. Phrased another way, if 10%, instead of less than 1% of 1%, of parents had a complaint, I'm not sure it'd be "just anecdotes".

So, yes. One anecdote, particularly an non-professional one, is nothing; how your buddy sees Pathfinder moving at the store he plays in means nothing. But quality anecdotes - directly from companies, company owner / operators, relating to how their products are directly affected by the shifts (if there is one) in the marketplace, are not 'just anecdotal', and reviewing multiple such anecdotes may well reveal significant market truths.

Note that it's fascinating to me that two companies - EN World Publishing and Alluria Publishing report the exact opposite sales experience when comparing 4th Edition and Pathfinder products. THAT is one of the most interesting tidbits to come out of this whole thread, and explains much of the strong feelings on both sides of the argument - each side, apparently, is experiencing events that the other simply doesn't, hasn't, and can't.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> 2. Morrus likes having less competition with 4e & getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie. I get the less competition part, but wouldn’t you want WotC to care about 3PP? Your posts seem to indicate that you think they are right to not care. To this non-3PP, this seems shortsighted.




Would I like WotC to care about _my _company and give me lots of free support and increase my sales?  Of course; who wouldn't?  Do I think that if WotC did that for ALL companies I'd lose sales the way I did in the d20 glut?  Yup.



> What happens if/when a new edition surfaces without a GSL (or its equivalent) and you can’t publish for that smaller pie? Small pie just went to no pie. Or do you then (or perhaps already?) publish “around the GSL”?




We publish for the environment we're in, and make backup plans for if that changes.  Right now we have the advantage of doing well in a market with little competition, and we'll happily use that as best we can.



> 3. Morrus dismisses other RPG Internet outlets like DTRPG as insignificant, yet touts his site’s sales experiences as relevant.




My experiences are relevant to _me_, not to anyone else, and merely serve as an example of a counterpoint to the "all 4E products don't sell" maxim that is being touted. 



> 4. We’ve got 3PPs chiming in that their own sales indicate that their PF products are outselling their 4e products? Has this site devolved to the state where we’re calling them liars because their view of the market isn’t one the opposing view likes?




No, we're simply using our own data to make our own business decisions, according to our own respective business models.  My model is clearly one where 4E prospers; clearly 4E doesn't prosper under different models, but that's hardly a reason to abandon my own successful model.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2011)

Emberion said:


> I have a very hard time believing that. Not that it isn't true, but I find that fact to be mind-numbingly improbable.




What fact? That we spend $30,000 on an adventure path over its lifetime? That's what we spent on WotBS, roughly. We actually plan to spend _more_ on ZEITGEIST over the next two years.

That's probably only a fraction of what WotC would spend on the same.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2011)

> I ask you, do these things together not suggest some kind of possible relationship to you? Without arguing about causality, can you not infer that 4e is not dominating Pathfinder, and may be surpassed by it?




Clearly many peoples' 3PP 4E products are not selling well. I'm, not disputing that. Extrapolating that to "Therefore the D&D game as a whole is failing, and making the GSL more generous would fix that" is where I take issue with the argument. I've seen no evidence that it would.




> I'm glad you're enjoying your AP business at present. I just hope you understand that while you are enjoying your happy little farm, things are going on that could significantly (scratch that, WILL significantly) change the landscape in ways no one can foresee clearly. At some point, the AP market will become more saturated, and it's tough for me to imagine what the follow-up act to that would be. It may be that you're saying you're happy to ride the wave, and in five years, when the well dries up, you're closing down shop. Which is fine, if that's how you see it.




Thanks for the business advice. Everyone, ZEITGEIST and SANTIAGO are cancelled! 

As for hypthetical future changes - we'll be OK, I'm sure. For all we know WotC will come out with 5E before then, or another third party game will be even more successful than Pathfinder, or Hasbro will go bankrupt, or a thousand other things that can change in five years.  We adapted to the 3E-4E change and actually started doing better, not worse.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 9, 2011)

I wish I lived in the Fringe otherverse wher the OGL continued into 4th edition.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Mar 9, 2011)

This is the greatest post about the RPG business EVER created. The "facts" and "opinions" on all sides are crazy in here! Jonathan I am kind of sorry I got you involved with this. LOL!!!!!


----------



## renau1g (Mar 9, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Thanks for the business advice. Everyone, ZEITGEIST and SANTIAGO are cancelled!




Damn...I just became a Silver supported just for that...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 9, 2011)

Okay everybody, deep breaths - even you Morrus. (Gods above and below, I can't believe that I am saying that.)

E N Publishing is in a different situation than most 4e 3pp - it has an audience fed from a site that is primarily D&D players - while there are a _lot_ of us who play Pathfinder the thrust of the site is D&D - which is currently 4e.

E N World has a built in audience of folks who started with the site when 3e was merely a glow on the horizon, and who changed when 3.5 and then 4.0 appeared - as a result E N World has a different audience than any other 3PP.

Me, I prefer Pathfinder, heck, I _hate_ 4e, but I know darned well that the majority of folks who post _here_ are playing 4e. Telling Morrus that his experience is wrong because it does not agree with most publisher's experiences is just silly - most of the buyers for WotBS are self selected from the teeming smelly hordes who frequent this site. And most of them members of the smelly throng still play D&D, and of the current edition.

Morrus and Co. have a different audience - their sales experience has no bearing on the larger market, nor does the larger market have much bearing on E N World. Arguing back and forth and calling each other liars does not change the fact that E N Publishing draws from a different pool.

I can remember when I was disbelieved on several sites when I mentioned that my local Borders sells more Pathfinder than D&D, until the sales figures came out in a lot of places showing the same thing. Even I did not believe that a single PoS was a viable sample, but in aggregate with other PoS the numbers meant something.

I honestly don't think that there _is_ an 800 lb gorilla at this point - there is a 400 lb gorilla that used to weigh in at 800 lbs and a 350 lb gorilla that used to be a chimpanzee. Put together, they don't equal the 800 lb gorilla that there used to be. Soon the ex-chimp may be in a position to beat up the ex-gorilla, but it won't be a cause for rejoicing on anybody's part. Because it will mean that Kong has leapt off the building.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I can remember when I was disbelieved on several sites when I mentioned that my local Borders sells more Pathfinder than D&D, until the sales figures came out in a lot of places showing the same thing. Even I did not believe that a single PoS was a viable sample, but in aggregate with other PoS the numbers meant something.




This is worth discussing - if only to clarify what people mean when they say that Pathfinder is doing better than D&D.

For example - is anyone saying that the Pathfinder core rulebook has sold more copies than the D&D 4E PHB?  Or, failing that, that it has sold more copies since release than the D&D 4E PHB did in the same time period? _ If_ that's the case (and someone has figures to show it - although that's unlikely) then I'll concede that Pathfinder is more successful.

The metric, surely, is "How many people are playing X, and will therefore buy future products?"  Will Paizo be selling as many "Sourcebook #10" units in two years as WotC did?

One thing I find problematic with this data is that people are comparing the sales of brand new game with the sales of a 4-year old game.  I have absolutely no trouble believing that upon launch a shiny new game's core rulebook can temporarily outsell a 4-year old gamer's 15th supplemental book - that sounds utterly feasible.  

But the telling metric is how many people overall are playing each game once the new one has settled down and is no longer new.  At that point, _both_ companies will be selling supplemental product, and it will be interesting to see what happens then. 

However, this is all a tangent to the original topic, which is the Open Letter and the GSL, and the benefit - or lack of - to WotC to make it easier for 3PPs.  It's getting hard to keep track of the conversation, to be honest - too many tangents flying around now.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 9, 2011)

ThatGuyThere said:


> 200 parents of vaccinated kids is also statisically meaningless, which is what you're missing, there. There are millions if not literally billions of vaccinated kids.
> 
> 200 gaming companies - be they FLGS or companies that sell .PDFs - all saying they were seeing Pathfinder radically outsell / outperform 4th Edition, would be a pretty significant chunk (if not darn near all) of the RPG industry. Phrased another way, if 10%, instead of less than 1% of 1%, of parents had a complaint, I'm not sure it'd be "just anecdotes".
> 
> So, yes. One anecdote, particularly an non-professional one, is nothing; how your buddy sees Pathfinder moving at the store he plays in means nothing. But quality anecdotes - directly from companies, company owner / operators, relating to how their products are directly affected by the shifts (if there is one) in the marketplace, are not 'just anecdotal', and reviewing multiple such anecdotes may well reveal significant market truths.



You're conflating two things here.

Sales data (just like it says on the tin) is data - if it's collected with an eye towards proper sampling and bias, anyway.  

"My friend at the game store says something" is an anecdote.

Collect a lot of sales data in a controlled way, and you have meaningful information, if not the whole picture.  Collect a lot of stories from the bookstore, and you have a collection of anecdotes.

-O


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 9, 2011)

Morrus said:


> This is worth discussing - if only to clarify what people mean when they say that Pathfinder is doing better than D&D.
> 
> For example - is anyone saying that the Pathfinder core rulebook has sold more copies than the D&D 4E PHB?  Or, failing that, that it has sold more copies since release than the D&D 4E PHB did in the same time period? _ If_ that's the case (and someone has figures to show it - although that's unlikely) then I'll concede that Pathfinder is more successful.
> 
> ...



Well, I can give some data from the local Borders, but it is only for the local Borders. One thing that I can tell you has been painful for the local Borders has been returns - they have been returning a lot of 4e, and have since it was introduced.

Now, I am _not_ saying that the game was not selling well when it first came out, I am saying that the distribution chain was over supplying the local Borders - and was likely over supplying a large number of other stores as well. This does not make bookstore managers happy. They eventually get most or all of their money back for the returns, but the delay eats up profit.

This year past the local Borders returned the majority of the stock of Essentials they got in for Christmas, including nearly all the Red Box. (For what it is worth, I thought that Essentials in general, and the Red Box in particular, would do very well. I was dead wrong in that regard - the part that sold well was the boxes of tiles, which even Pathfinder players were picking up. And I thought that _those_ would be the poor sellers.)

They have yet to return _any_ Pathfinder - but they have been getting _cases_ of 4e Essentials and only half a dozen or so of the Pathfinder when getting initial stock (this is recent - until October they were getting in three copies of each Pathfinder hardcover, they have doubled their order). Then they have been returning most of each case, and selling through the Pathfinder. So they are seeing two things - more sales on Pathfinder, and that they are having 4e crammed down their throats by corporate.  So guess which product they are happier with?

Now they are getting fewer of each product for 4e, and have increased the amounts for Pathfinder.

They are also spining 4e and facing Pathfinder at eye level - so the Pathfinder is getting more visual impact on the shelves. Pathfinder has been selling more copies with fewer books than 4e across the line. The manager's view is that WotC has glutted their own market. So Pathfinder is getting exposure while D&D is spined on higher shelves. (Which is better than being spined on lower shelves - folks would rather reach than bend.)

However, he was happy that all he had to return for the Essentials books was their covers - the remaindered books were stripped and I believe the boxes were crushed.  Crushing and stripping games still strikes me as barbaric and criminally wasteful.

At no time under 2e and 3.X was any game selling better than D&D, not even when 3.5 was in its last gasps, nor when Vampire was at its peak. So, shiny new game or not, D&D not being the top RPG seller at the local Borders is new, and frankly that is a bad thing - I do not think that it is just a matter of Pathfinder selling phenomenally well, it is a matter of decreasing sales of D&D vs. competition, for the first time. After trying not to do so under 3.X, WotC has, for the first time, split their market.

_However_ all the local Borders is stocking for Pathfinder is the hardcovers - I rely on a subscription for the Adventure Paths and special order any other softcovers that I want. If they were carrying the Adventure Paths then maybe they would see some returns for Pathfinder as well. But they aren't taking that chance.

There are dozens of books for 4e fighting for space, and only five for Pathfinder, and so far all the Pathfinder books have been of broad appeal, while some of the 4e books may be a mite focused.

Now, this is a sample size of one store, so not worth all that much, but I would still be surprised to find that it is far from typical.

Please, feel free to split this tangent off to a new thread, but I felt it worth mentioning.

On topic, I doubt that the letter will accomplish much, if anything. But then my respect for WotC has almost vanished, so I admit to personal bias. I loved the OGL, and thought that it was the best thing for RPGs that had come along in years. The GSL is more like a slap in the face with a dead fish. While I do not want D&D to fail I would not mind seeing 4e rot. And in my head 4e and D&D are separate things - the failure of 4e does not mean the failure of the game, merely of its most recent incarnation. (Which is, also in my opinion, blind optimism on my part - WotC is too invested in 4e for the failure of the line to be anything but a _bad_ thing.)

The Auld Grump, tired and getting overly garrulous.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 9, 2011)

Morrus said:


> One thing I find problematic with this data is that people are comparing the sales of brand new game with the sales of a 4-year old game.





Those dates for the core rules of each game seem off.  (Are we discussing 4e which came out in June 08 and PF which came out in August 09?)  Anyway, it would seem that the metric is _current sales of supplemental materials for each franchise_ (since that is the focus of the open letter) which, depending on who you ask, might be either.  I'm seeing as many people say their FLGS does better with one or the other.  I'm seeing more ePubs claim PF is the way to go while some, like yourself, say the competition is less with 4E so the return is better.  The data is only problematic if you believe anything you read actually resembles data.  The evidence, however, anecdotal and otherwise, seem to support a myriad of conjecture.  I can recall very few times in my life when D&D didn't clearly have the lion's share of the tabletop RPG market, new edition or not.


----------



## enrious (Mar 9, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> I’m still pondering what to take away from this thread.  Some of the thoughts & questions that are running through my head:
> 
> 1. Does anyone else find it ironic that just a few weeks after Mearls starts a “big tent of D&D” series of articles, we’ve got people actually using the argument of _“Why should WotC care about 3PPs?”_ as a counterpoint to the Open Letter?
> 
> ...





Here's the thing.  And I select this post to use an example.

Let's imagine.  Let's imagine that every single person in this thread, from Morrus to me all agreed that WotC needs to improve their 3pp support.

How much impact would that have on WotC?

Given that WotC has already decided that 3pp support is not in their best interests, none.

Let me say that again, none.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, no one posting here is part of WotC's management team, thus, none.

Hey look, I think they're wrong.  I think a partnership would be a good thing, but they don't.  In terms of how they run their company, they win.  

It's that simple.   Anything else is forum-gratification.


----------



## DiasExMachina (Mar 9, 2011)

Morrus said:


> However, this is all a tangent to the original topic, which is the Open Letter and the GSL, and the benefit - or lack of - to WotC to make it easier for 3PPs.  It's getting hard to keep track of the conversation, to be honest - too many tangents flying around now.




Yes, and I will navigate around the appendage measuring, as I attempted to do in the letter as well.  As mentioned, the reasons why I don't write for Paizo are not rooted in hatred for the company or a revulsion towards their rules.  When DEM endorsed 4E--and became one of the first to sign onto the GSL (GSL came out Friday, letter was in the mail Monday)--not only did we not know how popular Pathfinder would be, at that point it didn't exist at all.  We were done the first draft of Foundations before the beta test was made available.  The decision had been made.  We have kept with it for the same reasons as many others: the rules are good, the market is open, competition is light, and its the system my personal group endorses.  

Here's the irony, because of my lack of knowledge regarding Paizo, I wasn't even aware that they were doing exactly what I was suggesting WOTC do.  That proves (or at least weighs evidence) the business model is valid.  Beyond the alarmist and reactionary views being posted, I still enjoy 4E and will continue my often-mentioned obligations, Amethyst Evolution, Amethyst Factions, and Ultramodern4--all of which are due for release this year.  If these fail to make an impact, then I'll address this situation again.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 9, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Those dates for the core rules of each game seem off.  (Are we discussing 4e which came out in June 08 and PF which came out in August 09?)




Yes.  And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ?  So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...

Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second?  Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?

Really, someone wants to argue that, without accompanied sales data to prove the point?

Does anyone want us to take such an argument seriously?


----------



## Perram (Mar 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ?  So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...
> 
> Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second?  Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?
> 
> ...




We're working with all the data we can get.  Yeah, it might not be the best data in the world, but it certainly better than working with none.

People saying that Pathfinder spells the doom for WotC is a bit much at this point... but its certainly no better than ignoring every single anecdote, data point, release schedule, announcement, and discounting it piece by piece without considering that there might be something behind it all.

If anyone has better data, or heck any data regardless of who it shows doing well, I'm interested!


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ?  So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...
> 
> Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second?  Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?
> 
> ...





Again, there really isn't any data (none complete and reliable), there is only evidence from individuals which is comprised in part of annecdotal and testimonial accounts, and this discussion (regarding the open letter) is focused on what is happening now in terms of support material from 3pps for two rulesets, one that came out in June 08 and the other August 09.  Dragging this thread further off topic with your many side questions seems pointless since, as anyone who follows these boards knows, those questions have been hashed and rehashed countless times in threads you often eventually close.  Here's a question, why would a moderator of these boards even try to take a thread in that direction?  I seem to recall you jumping into any number of threads to point out the lack of data for either side of such arguments and now when someone is saying the same thing you hop in and dispute it?  That sort of behavior seems counter to some of your previous positions.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 9, 2011)

Perram said:


> Yeah, it might not be the best data in the world, but it certainly better than working with none.




I see little evidence that this is true in general, or in this case specifically.



Mark CMG said:


> Dragging this thread further off topic with your many side questions seems pointless since, as anyone who follows these boards knows, those questions have been hashed and rehashed countless times in threads you often eventually close.




It may seem pointless, but it isn't.  The issues are linked.  The major reason to compare PF now with D&D now is because there's a perception that PF sold as well or better than D&D before - that these two games are comparable in sales, and thus in market and expected longevity in general.  

If the two games are generally comparable in sales, then it makes sense to compare their business practices and policies.  If we are not sure if they are comparable, then we cannot (or at least should not) make a strong claim that the practices of one will apply well to the other.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> It may seem pointless, but it isn't.  The issues are linked.  The major reason to compare PF now with D&D now is because there's a perception that PF sold as well or better than D&D before - that these two games are comparable in sales, and thus in market and expected longevity in general.
> 
> If the two games are generally comparable in sales, then it makes sense to compare their business practices and policies.  If we are not sure if they are comparable, then we cannot (or at least should not) make a strong claim that the practices of one will apply well to the other.





If you don't feel you can discuss it, ignore the thread (advice generally given to those in your position) and stifling the discussion of others based your tenuous link seems counter to the nature of messageboards.  But, you've expressed your position (and it has been countered), so perhaps you can move on and allow others to continue the discussion regarding the open letter and the points expressed by the author of it?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ?  So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...
> 
> Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second?  Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?
> 
> ...



Your point strongly implies that if someone had walked up to you on 12/31/2009 and asked whether PF or 4E would be the number one seller for 2010 would be you would have answered: "Duh!  Pathfinder is newer, of course it will sell more."  

In the history of D&D it has always* been the #1 seller regardless of how old it was.  Other new games had their first year every year.  It never mattered.

We expect the first year's sales of a product to beat the second year's of that same product (or brand).  But comparing one game to another is a completely different matter.  What game do you think sold better than 3E during 3E's fourth year?  I'm sure there were plenty of games on their first and second year.  If comparing the 2nd year of D&D is unfair against the 1st year of something else, then comparing the fourth year should be terrible against the fourth year of anything else.

And that ignores the PF baggage of being a recycled game.

I'm happy to accept for sake of argument that 4E was #1.  The fact that there is an argument to make assumptions for the sake of really makes the point itself.


* - yeah, there is the one WOD data point, I accept that and don't think it changes the point.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 9, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Thanks for the business advice. Everyone, ZEITGEIST and SANTIAGO are cancelled!




That's not at all what I said. I congratulated you on your position, and as long as the horse will run, you might as well ride it. However, your situation is unusual, if not unique.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 9, 2011)

Obryn said:


> No, no matter how many anecdotes you compile, it's not data.  It's just a collection of anecdotes.




First of all, do you have any formal training in research? I do.



> Rigor and control in obtaining data is crucial.  Anecdotes have neither, no matter how many of them you compile.  Methodology is everything; without proper methodology, all of your data is suspect.  An experiment is not an anecdote; it's a strictly controlled set of measurements and conditions.




You're mixing and confusing a lot of terms in this paragraph. Why can't an anecdote have rigor? Do you think anthropologists realy on rigorless anecdotes? What about field tests of pharmaceuticals?



> For example, I can find two hundred parents who would tell me their kids became autistic after the MMR vaccine.  I can also find two hundred people who would swear that homeopathic remedies cured their cancer.  In both cases, it would be two hundred anecdotes.




The problem in this situation would be failing to identify anecdotes in which those cures were not successful.



> Neither would ever be data in any scientific sense of the term - just starting points for potential controlled experiments.
> 
> -O




Performing a controlled experiment in most of the examples you give is completely impossible. For instance, it's not feasible to randomly select 1000 people between two groups, give half of them cancer, and then treat the cancer and the non-cancer groups with a randomly selected treatment, either placebo or the experimental treatment.

In the real world, you have to deal with people who already have cancer, and who agree to be part of an experiment. You compare the experimental treatment to some sort of control, usually the "industry-standard" or "gold standard" alternative, maybe both. You can't give cancer treatments to people who are well, so your only comparison is whether the new treatment is significantly better than what you were doing before. Which will not tell you directly, whether the new treatment works at all, or even if what you were doing before was better than no treatment at all. 

Similarly, we can't run two controlled experiments, one in which WotC opens up the OGL to 4e material, and one in which they don't.

That doesn't mean there is no data. 

A quick overview of qualitative research:

Qualitative research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.


----------



## DiasExMachina (Mar 9, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> ...so perhaps you can move on and allow others to continue the discussion regarding the open letter and the points expressed by the author of it?




Yes, and I wanted to express my gratitude to the many people that posted comments here, on LivingDice.com, and Wizard's homeage.  It has been cross-posted by several people.  Taking out of account the rare ill-mannered accusation of me griping or of being lazy, everyone has been really supportive.  The collision of Paizo and WOTC was never part of my letter, other that the observation that Paizo was selling Amethyst in their online store and that my letter began because of Alea publishing moving away from 4th Edition, the third major publisher in six months to do so (my timeline may be in error, full disclosure).  I appreciate the support from Morrus and Enworld, posting nearly everything Amethyst related that comes up.  My hope was that WOTC follow that idea and roll with it using their considerable influence in the *D&D *community.  I sincerly believe establishing a relationship with 3rd party products would improve their image and increase the D&D market share.  The fact that Paizo follows that is conventient, a good argument, but honestly coincidental to the letter.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> If the two games are generally comparable in sales, then it makes sense to compare their business practices and policies.  If we are not sure if they are comparable, then we cannot (or at least should not) make a strong claim that the practices of one will apply well to the other.




Pathfinder and D&D compete for a segment of a shared market. I think that at this point this is undeniable.
In the past D&D was the absolute king of the market. It had no fear of any competition. This is not the case any more. D&D competes with a player that produces support of the highest quality for the product that made modern D&D the king it was, while D&D, prematurely distanced itself from that product to venture towards some new enterprise. This enterprise has failed to surpass the glory of the previous product and its established community, a glory of a vision that has been growing bigger due to Paizo's support.

Pathfinder is undeniably more successful than 4e. While 4e bears the D&D brand name, Pathfinder and Paizo have managed to capture the attention of the community that the D&D brand name totally ruled.

In this sense, Pathfinder, as of now has managed to surpass D&D. Whatever you say about 2nd year or 3rd year makes no sense. What makes sense is how many active players and followers each brand has and how many of them are going to support their brand in the future -even towards whatever new enterprises each brand decides to venture to.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Mar 9, 2011)

xechnao said:


> In the past D&D was the absolute king of the market. It had no fear of any competition. This is not the case any more....
> 
> Pathfinder is undeniably more successful than 4e....
> 
> In this sense, Pathfinder, as of now has managed to surpass D&D.



Again, people keep saying this, but nothing approximating verifiable proof has been offered. Where is your proof that Hasbro/WOTC "fears" the competition offered by Pathfinder? Also it depends entirely on your definition of "more successful" and "surpass," of which you seem to be offering two or three in your post.


----------



## Goonalan (Mar 9, 2011)

Hi

I'm not a producer of any products, just a lowly consumer- with a chunk of disposable income.

In previous editions, and I'm blushing a little as I type this, I spent up to £100/week on WOTC & 3PP products- actually, on average, for a good few years I spent £100 a week easily.

Just to let you know I work two jobs, have few debts, and dress badly- I've not got money to burn, I've just got money to spend.

I hate the fact that there are so few 3PP products for 4e (my favourite edition to date- 30 years DMing as of Jan).

I didn't buy WOTBS, it came free with my ENWorld Community Supporter account- I guess that still counts me as a sale for Morrus but when I started my sub it was nothing to do with WOTBS. I've not used WOTBS or read beyond the second adventure- nothing bad about it you understand just doesn't fit with my present games.

I'm a collector of D&D stuff as well as a DM- I own easy 90% of everything ever produced by Wizards/3PP for the 3X edition. I can say the same for 4e.

I want choice- and I know choice is bad- Morrus, sorry feller, but I want other businesses to get in to the act and produce adventures (and lots of other stuff) for 4e. Yours are great, but as a consumer, I want more choice.

I don't play Pathfinder- and yet I buy their books- Paizo and 3PP (I bought a lot of them (all) at first- but I couldn't justify keeping on buying products for a game I'll never play). I bought/buy them because they represente/d the only choice I could find- even, as I say, if they were for another game.

I just play D&D 4e, and yet I have bought a dozen other rules systems in the last year, because there are no other 4e products that I (want/need) or can just buy to read.

What I'm trying to say is I have this money I want to spend on 4e products, and I can't spend it because the products don't exist, or I've just bought them all. Okay this is a business model- the DI subscription thing, I get it. But if WOTC produced more 4e stuff I'd buy it, if they produced Minis I'd buy them (I have thousands), if 3PP produced more 4e stuff I'd buy them too.

Gasp- am I truly alone in this. 

Which leads me to make two points, available below, with supporting evidence-

1. (4e) D&D (in my house) has much much much much much less market saturation, D&D used to enjoy a 100% market share- with total domination of all shelves, book cases et al in my back room/office (and bed-side cabinet). It is at present vying for shelf space with not only other RPGS (none of which I play or DM you understand) but also DVDs, books (non-fantasy), magazines (again non-fantasy) and even an air freshener. Pre 4th edition such a situation would be viewed as a 2012/Mayan Calendar-style apocalyptic event, particularly the introduction of an air freshener. 

2. 4e D&D (in my house) has underperformed spectacularly from a fiscal POV, I was forced to use my disposable income to buy the Mrs a new car last year, that money was earmarked for my D&D spend, instead it was frittered away. A year ago I found myself phoning the mortgage company and quadrupling the amount I pay off every month- seriously. My spend has dropped from £400/month to, whatever... buttons- maybe £40-50.

The above two facts are the absolute truth- I have checked with me and can confirm them to be a 100% accurate.

I want a bigger 4e, I want a community (such as exists at Pathfinder), I want droves of 4e 3PP who can produce alternative adventures or other niche, specialist (or whatever) products.

I swear on my un-Essential Red Box that I will continue to buy everything WOTC produce (and I will continue to sub to ENWorld), however I promise I have more money to spend in attempt to keep other producers interested in making 4e a more vibrant place. 

Has anyone else noticed it's all got a little 'bad blood' of late, yeah I know we've been here before- as I said earlier 30 years DMing.

I know the customer is not always right, I'm just saying- I have money, can I have more 4e stuff, from more people- like they used to do, like they do at Pathfinder (damn them all to hell with with their excellent graphics, cartography, adventures et al- thank the lord for a shoddy rule-set).

So I'd really like it if WOTC had a re-think, that the letter in the OP touched a nerve, like it did with me- that's all. I know it wont of course- but there, I've had my say.

Cheers Goonalan.


----------



## enrious (Mar 9, 2011)

I don't dispute the accuracy of your report, Goonalan.

Heck, I used to be you, in a manner of speaking.

But at the end of the day, you're only one person.   Nevermind that you have the buying habit of four.

The two biggest mistakes a company can make:

1) Don't listen to their customers.

2) Listen to their customers.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 9, 2011)

Marius Delphus said:


> Again, people keep saying this, but nothing approximating verifiable proof has been offered. Where is your proof that Hasbro/WOTC "fears" the competition offered by Pathfinder? Also it depends entirely on your definition of "more successful" and "surpass," of which you seem to be offering two or three in your post.




I think his point is not necessarily that Pathfinder is selling more than 4e (though it very well could be) but that if you think about what each company would consider success, Paizo has been much more successful. That is, 4e went from market leader to actually sharing the ring for the first time ever. Is that success? Pathfinder, on the other hand, went from nothing to actually being in the ring as a genuine competitor vying for control of the market. Even if 4e is still outperforming Pathfinder, the mere fact that Pathfinder is in the ring is an astonishing amount of success.

The original Rocky movie is a great illustration of this point. Rocky, a nobody fighter, gets in the ring with the champ and though he actually loses the fight, the fact that he made it so close to winning is such an astonishing feat that nobody really cares whether he loses - he's made his mark and thus been successful.  

Anyway, I think thats what xechnao was trying to say. He can correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2011)

Early in the concept phase for ZEITGEIST I did consider including _Pathfinder_ stats. We quickly realised, though, that you can't just substitute statistics (any more than we could for the 3.5 - 4E WotBS conversion) and that it would require a lot of rewriting for each system to do a job worth doing.

However, based on this thread, I'm going to look again at that opinion. I'm very unsure that it can be done well - the games are just so different, with different advancement rates, PC capabilities, and so on. 

So, if there are any experienced _Pathfinder_ writers who feel that this is possible - and within their capabilities to do well - please contact me. I might have a job for you (taking an existing 4E adventure and converting it). However, I'm not convinced it can be done well without massive rewriting - and I'd rather not do it at all than do it badly.

But it might be worth an experiment - I'll even report the results in terms of relative percentages of versions downloaded if I do it.  I think I'd be a fool to try to compete with Paizo for the core product type of the core market of their own core game (just like I'd be a fool to be producing APs for 4E if WotC were churning out lots of quality APs), but it might be worth trying at least for the first adventure and see where we are.  _If_ we can find a good way to do it.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 9, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> First of all, do you have any formal training in research? I do.



Ditto.  Graduate-level, as if it matters.  Knowledge is knowledge; you're displaying a lack of understanding of basic methodology, so it wouldn't matter if all I had was a high school diploma.  But your appeal to authority/snark is cute.



> You're mixing and confusing a lot of terms in this paragraph. Why can't an anecdote have rigor? Do you think anthropologists realy on rigorless anecdotes? What about field tests of pharmaceuticals?



Again, it's data collection.

I'll not speak to anthropology, but I know there are several branches with varying degrees of scientific rigor.  Regardless, I doubt most physical anthropologists, archaeologists, social anthropologists, and the like would prefer to describe their work as "a collection of anecdotes."

Don't conflate "collecting anecdotes" with "surveys."  They're very different.

Field tests of pharmaceuticals aren't even remotely anecdotal.  They often involve surveys, but surveys != anecdotes.



> The problem in this situation would be failing to identify anecdotes in which those cures were not successful.



Again, it's not whether or not the cures were s successful that's important.  It's the control and methodology used in the collection of data.  This really isn't hard.



> Performing a controlled experiment in most of the examples you give is completely impossible. For instance, it's not feasible to randomly select 1000 people between two groups, give half of them cancer, and then treat the cancer and the non-cancer groups with a randomly selected treatment, either placebo or the experimental treatment.
> 
> In the real world, you have to deal with people who already have cancer, and who agree to be part of an experiment. You compare the experimental treatment to some sort of control, usually the "industry-standard" or "gold standard" alternative, maybe both. You can't give cancer treatments to people who are well, so your only comparison is whether the new treatment is significantly better than what you were doing before. Which will not tell you directly, whether the new treatment works at all, or even if what you were doing before was better than no treatment at all.



I am starting to doubt any research credentials you claim.

Let's say we're doing a cancer study for a treatment.  We'll take 200, 1000, whatever people; the methodology is the same regardless.

A simple double-blind would be, "Half get the real treatment, half get a sham treatment."  Neither the experimenters nor the patients know which one they're on.  Collect data at the end - surveys, results of medical examinations, whatever - and compare your treatment to both the placebo effect of the sham treatment and known industry standards.

None of the above is "collecting anecdotes" in any way, shape, or form.  Information and knowledge are controlled from start to finish.



> Similarly, we can't run two controlled experiments, one in which WotC opens up the OGL to 4e material, and one in which they don't.
> 
> That doesn't mean there is no data.



Of course you can't.  And of course there's data.  But neither "people on forums said this" or "my game shop owner said that" is meaningful data.  You could approach such a thing with a degree of rigor with, for example, surveys with randomized or bias-controlled participants, but what you'd find is data on what people in forums and game shops are saying.  If you think I'm saying the only way to find meaningful data would be to force WotC to make changes, then you're displaying a lack of imagination here.



> A quick overview of qualitative research:
> 
> Qualitative research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're welcome.



Sigh.

-O


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 9, 2011)

Obryn said:


> But your appeal to authority/snark is cute.




Not at all, I just like to know where to aim my argument. I was trying to be respectful and taking into account your level of knowledge before replying.



> Field tests of pharmaceuticals aren't even remotely anecdotal.  They often involve surveys, but surveys != anecdotes.




Tell me how, "Have you had any side effects this wee?" (however phrased) is not collecting anecdotes.



> Let's say we're doing a cancer study for a treatment.  We'll take 200, 1000, whatever people; the methodology is the same regardless.
> 
> A simple double-blind would be, "Half get the real treatment, half get a sham treatment."  Neither the experimenters nor the patients know which one they're on.  Collect data at the end - surveys, results of medical examinations, whatever - and compare your treatment to both the placebo effect of the sham treatment and known industry standards.




I'm not sure which part of my post you're replying to. From a controlled study standpoint, you've missed an important issue. You can't do a cancer drug study with a placebo. You just can't. Since there are existing treatments that are somewhat effective, it would be unethical. 



> Of course you can't.  And of course there's data.  But neither "people on forums said this" or "my game shop owner said that" is meaningful data.  You could approach such a thing with a degree of rigor with, for example, surveys with randomized or bias-controlled participants, but what you'd find is data on what people in forums and game shops are saying.




Actually, that would not be very useful data. You might be able to establish some sales figures, but for determing what and why, qualitative research is going to be much more effective than quantitative research. 

You've already admitted you don't know how social sciences do research, are you ready to admit you don't know much about marketing research, either?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 9, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Don't conflate "collecting anecdotes" with "surveys."  They're very different.



But by this standard, some of the market data we have are also "surveys" and not anecdotes.

One may challenge whether or not a given survey, as soundly scientific as it may be, is representative of the larger whole, or simply of the group which was surveyed.  

Then you get into splitting hairs.  A valid survey of group A' may be representative of A, or it may simply be the A' anecdote on the true nature of A.


----------



## DiasExMachina (Mar 9, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Early in the concept phase for ZEITGEIST I did consider including _Pathfinder_ stats. We quickly realised, though, that you can't just substitute statistics (any more than we could for the 3.5 - 4E WotBS conversion) and that it would require a lot of rewriting for each system to do a job worth doing.




From personal experience (and take this with whatever grain is available) converting an adventure shouldn't be too hard.  As for a campaign setting, it's vastly more difficult than one can expect.  The entire design philosophy between 3rd and 4th is so radically different, there are elements you can get away with with 3rd Edition that you can't with 4th Edition.  I have been accused of "following the 3rd Edition design philosophy"--a critisism that equates to not writing a 4E supplement to "feel" 4th Edition.  Quotes from reviews have included them saying, "3rd edition is about saying 'no' while 4th edition was about saying 'yes'" (I'm not agreeing; it's a quote).  I have written Amethyst for both 3rd Edition AND 4th Edition.  The games act and feel very different.  4th edition, by my observations, is more difficult to write for, as it is more strict with wording and balance.    

I am only making this statement based on my experience with 3.5.  If Pathfinder has moved into the same philosophy, then I recant my statement and state that it would be hard, but not as hard as it was adapting 3.5 to 4.0.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

DiasExMachina said:


> From personal experience (and take this with whatever grain is available) converting an adventure shouldn't be too hard.




We've converted 10 of them so far, with two to go (WotBS, not ZEITGEIST). It proved to be much more work than we initially imagines. Substantial rewriting was necessary for 3.4 -> 4E, and I imagine that equally substantial rewriting would be required to convert 4E ZEITGEIST to Pathfinder. The systems just don't work the same.

From little things like when PCs can fly or overcome obstacles, to relative power levels, to advancement rates, to the number of balanced encounters per level, to environmental expectations and dangers; these all require large-scale changes, which are much more than switching the stats for a 4E goblin to the stats for a Pathfinder goblin.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 10, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Tell me how, "Have you had any side effects this wee?" (however phrased) is not collecting anecdotes.



For starters, because your question is posed to the experimental group that you are targeting.  Second, because it is asked consistently of all participants.  There's rigor and intent behind the line of questioning; it's not simply a pool of volunteered stories from self-selected individuals.

The main difference between anecdotes and surveys is methodology, as I've said.  Surveys have methodology behind them, including population selection, bias control, and validity studies.  Anecdotes have none of these.  And I can't believe I'm explaining this to someone who claims a background in research.



> I'm not sure which part of my post you're replying to. From a controlled study standpoint, you've missed an important issue. You can't do a cancer drug study with a placebo. You just can't. Since there are existing treatments that are somewhat effective, it would be unethical.



And all of these can nevertheless controlled across the population.  "Placebo" does not mean, "let your cancer have a field day."  When we're talking new cancer treatments, the baseline is someone who's already receiving treatments of some kind - just not the kind you're investigating.

Like I said, this is basic, rudimentary experimental design.



> You've already admitted you don't know how social sciences do research, are you ready to admit you don't know much about marketing research, either?



I'm not going to speak to anthropology in specific, beyond some basics, because it was not my field of study.  (I would ask which sub-discipline you're talking about, though.)  I'll happily speak to psychology, which is, and which shares a good deal of overlap.

In no social science that I'm aware of is anecdotal evidence acceptable.  Given that surveys are frequently used in social sciences, I would expect that you'd know the difference between the two.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Mar 10, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But by this standard, some of the market data we have are also "surveys" and not anecdotes.



I'm not certain about this - it's still primarily volunteered and spontaneous expressions rather than a controlled collection of data from a good sample, collected by passive observers.



> One may challenge whether or not a given survey, as soundly scientific as it may be, is representative of the larger whole, or simply of the group which was surveyed.
> 
> Then you get into splitting hairs.  A valid survey of group A' may be representative of A, or it may simply be the A' anecdote on the true nature of A.



It's pretty far from splitting hairs, IMO.  You could definitely criticize psychology even as late as the mid-90's as knowing a whole lot about pigeons, rats, and undergrads, but not much about the general populace as a whole.

For example, collecting surveys of game store sales tells you what game stores are selling.  With good sampling, you have a pretty solid grasp on the population of game stores as a whole, and the purchasing patterns of people who visit game stores.  You have no meaningful data on players who don't visit game stores, players who don't buy books, players who buy from Amazon, etc.  Given that probably nobody but WotC has this sort of data at their fingertips - and they ain't talking - it means sales data from game stores is completely ungeneralizable to the population of gamers as a whole.

-O


----------



## xechnao (Mar 10, 2011)

Obryn said:


> ...the population of gamers as a whole.
> 
> -O




What about "google trends"?
Here is one trend request regarding the following keywords:
pathfinder rpg, d&d essentials, d&d 4e
http://trends.google.com/trends?q=pathfinder+rpg%2C+d%26d+essentials%2C+d%26d+4e&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0


----------



## BryonD (Mar 10, 2011)

Obryn said:


> I'm not certain about this - it's still primarily volunteered and spontaneous expressions rather than a controlled collection of data from a good sample, collected by passive observers.



I'm not just talking about ENWorld surveys.  



> It's pretty far from splitting hairs, IMO.  You could definitely criticize psychology even as late as the mid-90's as knowing a whole lot about pigeons, rats, and undergrads, but not much about the general populace as a whole.
> 
> For example, collecting surveys of game store sales tells you what game stores are selling.  With good sampling, you have a pretty solid grasp on the population of game stores as a whole, and the purchasing patterns of people who visit game stores.  You have no meaningful data on players who don't visit game stores, players who don't buy books, players who buy from Amazon, etc.  Given that probably nobody but WotC has this sort of data at their fingertips - and they ain't talking - it means sales data from game stores is completely ungeneralizable to the population of gamers as a whole.
> 
> -O



IMO where THIS specific debate has gone IS splitting hairs.

I agree with your observations about game store sales information.  But it is still a survey of a group.  And we end up declaring one group representative and another not.  

And when you get games store's data, and distributor's data, and book store data, and 3PP data, and simple personal observations, and so on and so on, and you keep getting the same conclusions for Group A' A'' A''' A'''' etc...   it may be very reasonable to not be fully convinced, but it becomes absurd to believe the opposite is true.

It isn't just a matter of saying "game store sales are not representative" of the whole.  It is a matter of trying to discredit each and every data piece, one by one, and then declare that because none of them represent the whole, that the collective of them provide no window whatsoever on the whole.

And there are plenty of legitimate studies which get hit with the same kind of nullification arguments that only really work when you ignore that all the individual parts DO exist in the same whole.  And to micromanage each piece as its own universe requires splitting hairs.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

xechnao said:


> What about "google trends"?
> Here is one trend request regarding the following keywords:
> pathfinder rpg, d&d essentials, d&d 4e
> Google Trends: pathfinder rpg, d&d essentials, d&d 4e




Try is with: pathfinder rpg, d&d
Google Trends: pathfinder rpg, d&d

You can't even see Pathfinder - it's a little blue line at the bottom of the graph. But, notably, D&D has been dropping for several years.

But Google trends can be used to prove anything if you pick your desired terms correctly! Make one general and the other specific (eg a specific D&D book vs. a full brand) and you could probably reverse that easily.  And if you just say "Pathfinder", of course, you get a hell of a lot more than the RPG.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 10, 2011)

Well, Pathfinder is essentially a d&d 3.5e spin off. That is, I doubt that there is anyone on earth that has not heard of D&D, while being aware of the Pathfinder rpg.

But Wotc currently only supports 4e. Mike Mearls' last article excluded, Wotc has given the impression to be aggressive towards everything not 4e D&D. 

At the same time, Pathfinder taps on the most relevant segment of this d&d community: "3.5 thrives". Based on all accounts and evidence, this seems to be a segment of the most active part of the community.


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 10, 2011)

Morrus said:


> But Google trends can be used to prove anything if you pick your desired terms correctly!




Yep, just try paizo and wotc. That's an interesting one there since they're both quite specific.


----------



## DiasExMachina (Mar 10, 2011)

Morrus said:


> We've converted 10 of them so far, with two to go (WotBS, not ZEITGEIST). It proved to be much more work than we initially imagines. Substantial rewriting was necessary for 3.4 -> 4E, and I imagine that equally substantial rewriting would be required to convert 4E ZEITGEIST to Pathfinder. The systems just don't work the same.
> 
> From little things like when PCs can fly or overcome obstacles, to relative power levels, to advancement rates, to the number of balanced encounters per level, to environmental expectations and dangers; these all require large-scale changes, which are much more than switching the stats for a 4E goblin to the stats for a Pathfinder goblin.





Well, there you go, Morrus.  I concede the point.  I have no experience in converting adventures, only converting campaign worlds.  I know that converting a campaign world was WAY more work than I anticipated.  Back then, we only had the first core books to work from (not even through the first errata by that point).  What made our job more convoluted was that we were also changing the setting as well, making it more inline to my original concept...another reason why I liked 4E over 3E--I was able to make the setting closer to canon without breaking gameplay balance.

So I would totally differ to your experience on adapting adventures.  I was only speaking from what I knew from Goodman Games; their first DCC volumes using 4th Edition had originally been 3.5 adventures that were converted.  I have no idea how hard it was for them to do so.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 10, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> Yep, just try paizo and wotc. That's an interesting one there since they're both quite specific.





or Wizards of the Coast (you know their actual name ) and Paizo

Google Trends: "wizards of the coast", paizo


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)




----------



## xechnao (Mar 10, 2011)

renau1g said:


> or Wizards of the Coast (you know their actual name ) and Paizo
> 
> Google Trends: "wizards of the coast", paizo




Interestingly in the news articles press "wizards of the coast" eclipses Paizo but in web searches Paizo eclipses "wizards of the coast"


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 10, 2011)

renau1g said:


> or Wizards of the Coast (you know their actual name ) and Paizo
> 
> Google Trends: "wizards of the coast", paizo



Paizo does have an advantage of also being a word by itself. Look at the results for Greek in the Languages section.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 10, 2011)

Obryn said:


> For starters, because your question is posed to the experimental group that you are targeting.  Second, because it is asked consistently of all participants.  There's rigor and intent behind the line of questioning; it's not simply a pool of volunteered stories from self-selected individuals.




But the store owners I asked aren't self-selected. I selected them, and I included in my sample all the store owners I had access to. It's a convenience sample, but a sample nonetheless.



> The main difference between anecdotes and surveys is methodology, as I've said.  Surveys have methodology behind them, including population selection, bias control, and validity studies.  Anecdotes have none of these.




There is nothing about a collection of anecdotes that precludes those attributes.



> And I can't believe I'm explaining this to someone who claims a background in research.




Yeah, me neither. 



> And all of these can nevertheless controlled across the population.  "Placebo" does not mean, "let your cancer have a field day."  When we're talking new cancer treatments, the baseline is someone who's already receiving treatments of some kind - just not the kind you're investigating.
> 
> Like I said, this is basic, rudimentary experimental design.




You're right, it is basic, rudimentary experimental design. So you don't know what a placebo is. Fine.

Is it rude for me to point out that you have now adopted my baseline for cancer research and contradicted your previous post?



> I'm not going to speak to anthropology in specific, beyond some basics, because it was not my field of study.  (I would ask which sub-discipline you're talking about, though.)  I'll happily speak to psychology, which is, and which shares a good deal of overlap.




Then speak. You happened to pick a field I know little bit about.



> In no social science that I'm aware of is anecdotal evidence acceptable.  Given that surveys are frequently used in social sciences, I would expect that you'd know the difference between the two.




You would expect I would know what exactly? I know you'd like to draw a neat little line from anecdote to "only anecdotal" but I don't think you've justified that point. In any case my original point was directed at someone else. Justify why I should argue with you about the criteria for truth.

The essence of logic is to make the best use of the knowledge we have, rather than the knowledge we wish we had. This conversation is a non-starter if you are not willing to admit as evidence that which is most likely. Claiming we need a "controlled study" is fatuous. Controlled studies are a very specific kind of methodology. Outside clinical scienes they are rare, and within clinical sciences, they beg for periodic field studies to confirm their predictions.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 10, 2011)

Q: What can you say to explain the situation to a D&D 4e 3pp with two black eyes?

A: Nothing, it's obvious they don't listen.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 10, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Interestingly in the news articles press "wizards of the coast" eclipses Paizo but in web searches Paizo eclipses "wizards of the coast"




Yeah, but isn't "paizo" is a greek term that means "to play"?

Some of those google stats could be from people using the word genericly and not referring to the RPG publisher.


----------



## mattcolville (Mar 10, 2011)

I think WotC already produces more high-quality player and monster options than any group of players could possibly exhaust in a lifetime of play. So I don't think there's any real need there. 

I think the only real need is for more adventure and setting content.

Setting content, you don't really need WotC for. Anyone could publish a system-agnostic setting.

Adventure material is the only place I see any real need, where that need has any dependency on WotC. If WotC is smart...it'll use the DDI to allow anyone to make encounters and adventures using their own tools, share them on the DDI with other subscribers who can vote it up or down, or take it and modify it to make their own versions which might be better.

Give the users the tools, let them make the content, give them a robust mechanism for sharing and voting, and we won't need any 3rd party support at all, and we'll get all the high-quality adventure material we could ever need.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 10, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> But the store owners I asked aren't self-selected. I selected them, and I included in my sample all the store owners I had access to. It's a convenience sample, but a sample nonetheless.



A convenience sample is a very poor sample.



> There is nothing about a collection of anecdotes that precludes those attributes.



The very _definition _of anecdotal evidence precludes those attributes.

Since you want to link to wikipedia - seriously, check it out.



> You're right, it is basic, rudimentary experimental design. So you don't know what a placebo is. Fine.
> 
> Is it rude for me to point out that you have now adopted my baseline for cancer research and contradicted your previous post?



I think you might want to re-read my post, if that's what you think.

A placebo, quite simply, is a sham treatment.  It's generally going through the motions - taking a sugar pill, getting a harmless injection, and so on.

Placebos don't _preclude _the existence of other forms of treatment.  A placebo is not, "ha-ha, die of cancer."  It's "continue with whatever we're doing, or else start the standard treatment, and we're going to pretend to do something more to you, only you don't know that we're pretending."

With non-medical experiments, where there's no ethical concerns about withholding the best treatment and just ethical concerns regarding deception, it's not even this complicated.



> Then speak. You happened to pick a field I know little bit about.



Simply put - moreso than many other sciences, psychology needs to adhere to methodological rigor.  This is in part because it's been historically so full of unscientific fluff, and in part because the mechanics of cognition aren't directly observable.  But, the same rules apply as apply in any evidence-based discipline - yes, this includes the social sciences.  If you are not applying any rigor to your data, then you have flawed data.



> You would expect I would know what exactly? I know you'd like to draw a neat little line from anecdote to "only anecdotal" but I don't think you've justified that point. In any case my original point was directed at someone else. Justify why I should argue with you about the criteria for truth.



We're not talking about truth per se; I'm not going to get into a metaphysical debate with you, because that would be even further afield than we are.  What I am saying is not just that your evidence needs to support your conclusions.  Your evidence needs to qualify as such, and you need to show your work.  If you're using a collection of stories from game shop owners you know, you know their opinions on the subject and little else.



> The essence of logic is to make the best use of the knowledge we have, rather than the knowledge we wish we had. This conversation is a non-starter if you are not willing to admit as evidence that which is most likely. Claiming we need a "controlled study" is fatuous. Controlled studies are a very specific kind of methodology. Outside clinical scienes they are rare, and within clinical sciences, they beg for periodic field studies to confirm their predictions.



No, I'm saying that you should at least apply some methodological rigor.  "Convenience samples" and collections of anecdotes have none.

Anecdotes aren't useless - they're a great starting point for actual research.  They're not to be mistaken for research.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Mar 10, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I agree with your observations about game store sales information.  But it is still a survey of a group.  And we end up declaring one group representative and another not.



Not specifically.  I think it's fair to say that the population of gamers who frequent hobby shops is different from (but likely at least partially overlapping with) the population of gamers who buy from RPG now and that is in turn different from the population of gamers who buy from B&N and _that_ is also different from the population of gamers who shop at Amazon.  There's overlap and interplay here, but I have no idea how much.



> And when you get games store's data, and distributor's data, and book store data, and 3PP data, and simple personal observations, and so on and so on, and you keep getting the same conclusions for Group A' A'' A''' A'''' etc...   it may be very reasonable to not be fully convinced, but it becomes absurd to believe the opposite is true.
> 
> It isn't just a matter of saying "game store sales are not representative" of the whole.  It is a matter of trying to discredit each and every data piece, one by one, and then declare that because none of them represent the whole, that the collective of them provide no window whatsoever on the whole.



Well, I think it's reasonable to ask (1) How valid is the data you're looking at? (2) Have you shown that the data you're looking at is evidence for or against your argument? and (3) What pieces of the puzzle are you missing, and might those missing pieces of evidence serve to nullify your tentative conclusions?

In this case, if you're arguing that DTRPG doesn't sell many 3pp 4e products, all available evidence shows you're right.  If you're arguing that this means there's _no market_ for 3pp 4e products and that nobody is interested in them, you simply don't have evidence to generalize to this level of abstraction.

-O


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 10, 2011)

Gently people, gently.

I find it interesting that a thread based on an open letter, a _largely conciliatory letter_, seems to have gotten so many knickers tied in knots, even the knickers of mods and admins.

While I don't think that the letter will accomplish anything I also don't think that there should be quite this much vitriol.

So, please folks, let us sit back and take a moment to calm our nerves.

I will admit that I completely lost interest in Zeitgeist when I saw that it was going to be 4e only, but then again, I only have the first adventure for WotBS, even though I am a supporter, and could theoretically get it for free. So Zeitgeist in Pathfinder would, by no means, ensure my getting the Path. 

I am not saying that anything is bad about WotBS, just that it does not fit my cosmology, man. I know absolutely nothing about Zeitgeist, having left the page as soon as I saw the 4e logo. If it were released for Pathfinder I _would_ at least take a look at it - the logo for Zeitgeist caught me more than that of WotBS did. It is a very nice logo. 

If E N Publishing were to support Pathfinder I would much rather it do so in the form of supplements - I _still_ brag up Steam & Steel on a regular basis.  Heck, I use Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth every Saturday, and would _love_ to see more of EoM for Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump, c'mon folks, _I'm_ supposed to be the grumpy one!


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Mar 10, 2011)

DiasExMachina said:


> So I would totally differ to your experience on adapting adventures.  I was only speaking from what I knew from Goodman Games; their first DCC volumes using 4th Edition had originally been 3.5 adventures that were converted.  I have no idea how hard it was for them to do so.




Judging by the results (Sellswords of Punjar), it wasn't very hard. But it should have been. This example clearly shows that a good 4e adventure doesn't fit into the 3.5 design space.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 10, 2011)

Obryn said:


> A placebo, quite simply, is a sham treatment.  It's generally going through the motions - taking a sugar pill, getting a harmless injection, and so on.
> 
> Placebos don't _preclude _the existence of other forms of treatment.  A placebo is not, "ha-ha, die of cancer."  It's "continue with whatever we're doing, or else start the standard treatment, and we're going to pretend to do something more to you, only you don't know that we're pretending."




If they continue to receive a treatment, then it's not a placebo. It should be obvious that two treatments might interact with each other. 



> If you're using a collection of stories from game shop owners you know, you know their opinions on the subject and little else.




I'm trying to imagine what would be more useful evidence. It's like, if it starts raining, and I wonder if I'm going to get wet, I might go outside and see if the rain makes me wet. Upon returning, I exclaim, "I checked, and the rain is wet." To which you reply, "Well, you didn't check all the rain."



> No, I'm saying that you should at least apply some methodological rigor.  "Convenience samples" and collections of anecdotes have none.




Unless you're using "none" in a sense with which I am unfamiliar, you're wrong. Convenience sampling does occur, sometimes has to occur, if that's the best you've got. Throwing your hands up and saying, "Gosh, I guess we don't know anything," is not scientific or rigorous in any sense.



> Anecdotes aren't useless - they're a great starting point for actual research.  They're not to be mistaken for research.




Again, this discussion was not launched by a question of how to do laboratory science. In this case, "actual research" would probably mean polling industry people, getting whatever numbers are available, and trying to develop a perspective on what is likely true. There is no perfect method. To be perfectly frank, even a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a truly random sample is not foolproof. First of all, any study , however tightly performed, is a betting game. If p=0.001, then you still have a very small chance of an error. Second, the entire scientific method has problems escaping from the illusion of causality: post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is actually no way to establish causality by performing a quantitative experiment. It can only be inferred.

As I said, evidence in this case does not involve some kind of bizarre experiement on two alternate universes.  The best evidence is going to be inductive reasoning based on an accumulation of facts. One solitary fact is not much evidence, but many facts make it possible to step beyond. 

I could very well be a mutant eggplant, depending on how skeptical you are willing to be. 

When the belief in two alternative viewpoints seems to relate with unusual frequency to some personal interest, that should suggest to the philosophic mind that the question is a prism of our biases.


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

Some people should just get a room.

And Grump, I know how you feel.   When Zeitgeist was announced for 4e exclusively, I never bothered to look at it.

With Morrus saying he'd consider Pathfinderizing it, I took a look and it does look neat.  Hope it works out.

I bought a WotBS sub way back when, but doubt I've downloaded more than the first 3 or 4 adventures.  Nothing wrong with it, but at the time I was deep into Ptolus.

And right, back on topic, the actual Open Letter that was written.

I think it admirably expressed the view of the writer.

What more is there?


----------



## xechnao (Mar 10, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Not specifically.  I think it's fair to say that the population of gamers who frequent hobby shops is different from (but likely at least partially overlapping with) the population of gamers who buy from RPG now and that is in turn different from the population of gamers who buy from B&N and _that_ is also different from the population of gamers who shop at Amazon.  There's overlap and interplay here, but I have no idea how much.
> -O




Sure, but it is not likely that one product dominates anyone of these populations in expense of the other product. Both products can more or less equally reach these populations. They target the same market. There is really no evidence that some population should prefer one product over the other due to its population specific characteristics. I really do not think you are saying much here. That is, your point or rather your argument against Pawsplay's is weaker than his.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 10, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> If they continue to receive a treatment, then it's not a placebo. It should be obvious that two treatments might interact with each other.



Indeed, they might.  I'm not arguing that clinical trials are easy.



> I'm trying to imagine what would be more useful evidence. It's like, if it starts raining, and I wonder if I'm going to get wet, I might go outside and see if the rain makes me wet. Upon returning, I exclaim, "I checked, and the rain is wet." To which you reply, "Well, you didn't check all the rain."



The primary difference here is that there's nobody arguing that it's not.

A more relevant example would be you taking your experience that it's raining outside to mean that it it's raining everywhere.



> Unless you're using "none" in a sense with which I am unfamiliar, you're wrong. Convenience sampling does occur, sometimes has to occur, if that's the best you've got. Throwing your hands up and saying, "Gosh, I guess we don't know anything," is not scientific or rigorous in any sense.



I'm not saying it's completely worthless - I'm saying at best it suggests an avenue for future research if your only selection criteria was "well, some guys I know."  Again, since you've started quoting wikipedia, I will direct you there again.

If you have a large enough convenient sample that you have reason to believe is randomized to some extent or that you have reason to believe the in-group variance is irrelevant, it's probably fine - like the example of using undergrads at a large university that I mentioned before.



> Again, this discussion was not launched by a question of how to do laboratory science. In this case, "actual research" would probably mean polling industry people, getting whatever numbers are available, and trying to develop a perspective on what is likely true. There is no perfect method. To be perfectly frank, even a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a truly random sample is not foolproof. First of all, any study , however tightly performed, is a betting game. If p=0.001, then you still have a very small chance of an error. Second, the entire scientific method has problems escaping from the illusion of causality: post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is actually no way to establish causality by performing a quantitative experiment. It can only be inferred.



Now we're getting silly.  That is why we replicate studies.  Of course experiments can and will be wrong, but it's erroneous to imply they're still not the best available tool.



> As I said, evidence in this case does not involve some kind of bizarre experiement on two alternate universes.  The best evidence is going to be inductive reasoning based on an accumulation of facts. One solitary fact is not much evidence, but many facts make it possible to step beyond.
> 
> I could very well be a mutant eggplant, depending on how skeptical you are willing to be.
> 
> When the belief in two alternative viewpoints seems to relate with unusual frequency to some personal interest, that should suggest to the philosophic mind that the question is a prism of our biases.



I'll get to this later.  Gotta work.

-O


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

I've been searching round the Paizo site, but I can't find this list people are talking about of where they support/display 3PPs. Anyone got a link handy? Or are we just talking about the product category in their store?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 10, 2011)

Morrus said:


> I've been searching round the Paizo site, but I can't find this list people are talking about of where they support/display 3PPs. Anyone got a link handy? Or are we just talking about the product category in their store?




I think this is what you are looking for.

There is also the Licensee Forum where ad and promo threads can be started.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 10, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> Yeah, but isn't "paizo" is a greek term that means "to play"?
> 
> Some of those google stats could be from people using the word genericly and not referring to the RPG publisher.



I believe you are right about the term, but I greatly doubt that people googling the generic term is having a big impact.

However, I do think that there are probably vastly more people looking for WotC rather than typing out "Wizards of the Coast", while there is no equivalent for Paizo.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 10, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Not specifically.  I think it's fair to say that the population of gamers who frequent hobby shops is different from (but likely at least partially overlapping with) the population of gamers who buy from RPG now and that is in turn different from the population of gamers who buy from B&N and _that_ is also different from the population of gamers who shop at Amazon.  There's overlap and interplay here, but I have no idea how much.



I think you are demonstrating my point here.




> Well, I think it's reasonable to ask (1) How valid is the data you're looking at? (2) Have you shown that the data you're looking at is evidence for or against your argument? and (3) What pieces of the puzzle are you missing, and might those missing pieces of evidence serve to nullify your tentative conclusions?



I agree that there is some, even significant, uncertainty around the data we have.  My point is not that there is proof beyond any hint of a doubt.

But no one is even identifying "missing pieces".  We have a collection of pieces that consistently point in the same clear direction.  

Your strict absolutist standard drives the discussion deeply into the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" territory.  There comes a point when reasonable conclusions may be reached.  It isn't even a question of "prove/nullify" but rather a matter of degree of accuracy.  Trying to argue that we are not enough "in the ballpark" to have a reasonable conversation seriously misses the forest for the trees.



> In this case, if you're arguing that DTRPG doesn't sell many 3pp 4e products, all available evidence shows you're right.  If you're arguing that this means there's _no market_ for 3pp 4e products and that nobody is interested in them, you simply don't have evidence to generalize to this level of abstraction.



No one has claimed "no market".  Again, when you start substituting "nullification" and "no market" for the much more reasonable terms of the actual discussion, you are off the track.

Frankly, the item that best fits your standards is that ENWorld Publishing has its asociation with ENWorld making it clearly distinct form other 4E 3PPs.  That *might* nullify that data as meaningful to the larger discussion. (Not that Morrus should in any way care about the larger discussion when making ENWorld choices....)

-O[/QUOTE]


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 10, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I will admit that I completely lost interest in Zeitgeist when I saw that it was going to be 4e only.






enrious said:


> When Zeitgeist was announced for 4e exclusively, I never bothered to look at it.




I think you're both going to miss out on some good material in the future if you continue with this attitude.

I've used both the Rise of the Runelords adventure path and Council of Thieves in 4th Edition.

I would have missed out on two great Paizo adventure paths if I decided to ignore them because they are exclusively 3E.


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think you're both going to miss out on some good material in the future if you continue with this attitude.
> 
> I've used both the Rise of the Runelords adventure path and Council of Thieves in 4th Edition.
> 
> I would have missed out on two great Paizo adventure paths if I decided to ignore them because they are exclusively 3E.




I happen to know of great Pathfinder material that I'm missing out on right now.

And that's stuff I wouldn't have to bother converting.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

Wicht said:


> I think this is what you are looking for.
> 
> There is also the Licensee Forum where ad and promo threads can be started.




That's interesting.  I thought - from the tone of this thread - that it was more than that.  WotC does exactly the same thing:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Partnerships

And has its licensee forum here:

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 10, 2011)

enrious said:


> And that's stuff I wouldn't have to bother converting.




Converting stuff to 3E is a bother. Check.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 10, 2011)

Morrus said:


> That's interesting.  I thought - from the tone of this thread - that it was more than that.  WotC does exactly the same thing:
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Partnerships
> 
> ...




Paizo also promotes 3pp on its Store Blog, and in its weekly email/newsletter.  And it sells the 3pp material through its own store.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Paizo also promotes 3pp on its Store Blog, and in its weekly email/newsletter. And it sells the 3pp material through its own store.




Yeah, the difference appears to be the existence of a general RPG store, which is a large part of Paizo's business; RPGNow/DTRPG does the same. I sell some 4E stuff at Paizo, too.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 10, 2011)

BryonD said:


> However, I do think that there are probably vastly more people looking for WotC rather than typing out "Wizards of the Coast", while there is no equivalent for Paizo.




You could take 5 seconds and see:

Google Trends: "wizards of the coast", wotc

And you'd surprisingly find out that more people type out the name. Perhaps not everyone is as hardcore and knows acronyms for the company? 

Now, Wizards also benefits from being the producer of MTG so obviously their results are skewed a bit, and Paizo has an excellent e-store, so that's not a good comparison because both their sites contain extraneous stuff that would alter the searches (at least I think it would).

Pathfinder also can't be used because it's a fairly generic word and I know if I google it I get the Nissan Pathfinder, the 2007 movie Pathfinder, etc. 

So, what am I saying? Not sure, but just commenting I suppose.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 10, 2011)

Wicht said:


> And it sells the 3pp material through its own store.




Well, wizards doesn't operate a web store, so that could prove difficult for them...


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think you're both going to miss out on some good material in the future if you continue with this attitude.
> 
> I've used both the Rise of the Runelords adventure path and Council of Thieves in 4th Edition.
> 
> I would have missed out on two great Paizo adventure paths if I decided to ignore them because they are exclusively 3E.




I think the difference is, you have experience with both systems.  Those of us who never played 4E would be fighting rules ignorance while trying to translate.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 10, 2011)

renau1g said:


> And you'd surprisingly find out that more people type out the name.




No. People only type wotc. In typed searches wotc totally eclipses "wizards of the coast".
OTOH the presence of the term "wizards of the coast" eclipses the term "wotc" within news articles.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 10, 2011)

I think story ideas, NPC's, etc would be easy to grab. I do it all the time from my old Dungeon mags. I still read them despite not playe 3e anymore. Paizo's NPC's are very well developed and I find it a huge time saver. I've grabbed some stuff from WotBS even if I don't likely plan to run it from start to finish. 

Oh, and maps. Maps are always great to have, even if you can't use the encounter they're built for.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 10, 2011)

xechnao said:


> No. People only type wotc. In typed searches wotc totally eclipses "wizards of the coast".
> OTOH the presence of the term "wizards of the coast" eclipses the term "wotc" within news articles.




Am I reading it wrong then? I thought the blue line represents "wizards of the coast", the red wotc. In the top box, the blue is higher than the red. 

The bottom box I thought represented the news references (which is in red, therefore I thought wotc).


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 10, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I will admit that I completely lost interest in Zeitgeist when I saw that it was going to be 4e only...
> 
> I know absolutely nothing about Zeitgeist, having left the page as soon as I saw the 4e logo.




Same thing here. 

Here I am going through my old 1E and basic modules trying to figure out where to place Hommlet, the Temple, The Caves of Chaos and the Keep in Golarion. So something that wasn't already set in Golarion isn't an issue for me. Converting from 4E to Pathfinder tho? So not worth it for me at all. 

To be fair though, even if they did come out with a Pathfinder version I probably wouldn't pick it up as it would be done as an afterthought. EN World hitched their wagon to the 4E horse and seems to be fine with that. They don't need my money. 

Of course, all of that goes out of the window if the adventure is really awesome though.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 10, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Am I reading it wrong then?



Ehhh, realy? I am not sure anymore. In that article reference "Wotc" is in the title but "wizards of the coast" in the text.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 10, 2011)

Morrus said:


> That's interesting.  I thought - from the tone of this thread - that it was more than that.  WotC does exactly the same thing:




Not exactly.

This is what Paizo has done in the past month:  Rite Publishing Roundup, Super Genius Roundup, A print book from Skortched Urf' Studios/Mongoose, Another Rite Publishing roundup.

Granted, these all link to the Paizo store so they are selling these items so they are making money from it. But I have to tell you, the quantity of exposure this gets translates into ALOT of sales. As in, products of mine that don't make it into Paizo's blog sell 2:1 better at DriveThruRPG while those that make it into the blog sell 2:1 better at Paizo, with roughly a consistent number of gross sales a DriveThru in both cases. 

Then there's email. I've sent emails to James Jacobs, Vic Wertz and Jason Bulmahn about products of mine and they answer them. They have been very helpful. Thats on top of the emails I send Jeff Alvarez, Ross Byers and plenty others about technical issues and other non-game related issues who are exceptionally helpful. 

A prime example of one such email concerned my best selling series: *Book of the River Nation*. The series takes the rules of the Kingmaker exploration, kingdom building and mass combat rules and reprints them for players so they do not have to buy the adventure to get the rules they are going to be using. About a month before the first installment launched, I sent Vic an email asking if Paizo had any issues with me doing so. I made sure to state that I took out all of Paizo's product identity and that if Paizo was uncomfortable with what I was thinking of doing, I would be willing to scrap the whole project. After reviewing the project, Vic emailed me back saying that Paizo had no problem with what I was doing. 

I don't believe any of 3rd party 4E publisher has had similar contact with Wizards. It was very nice knowing in advance that Paizo was perfectly ok with what I was doing before launching, riding so close to their IP.

EDIT: Dang, I told myself that I was not going to participate in this tread anymore.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> This is what Paizo has done in the past month: Rite Publishing Roundup, Super Genius Roundup, A print book from Skortched Urf' Studios/Mongoose, Another Rite Publishing roundup.
> 
> Granted, these all link to the Paizo store so they are selling these items so they are making money from it. But I have to tell you, the quantity of exposure this gets translates into ALOT of sales. As in, products of mine that don't make it into Paizo's blog sell 2:1 better at DriveThruRPG while those that make it into the blog sell 2:1 better at Paizo, with roughly a consistent number of gross sales a DriveThru in both cases.




I'll agree that having a web store as a large part of your business will encourage this type of behaviour. It's the same stuff RPGNow/DTRPG does (weekly emails, etc. - although they have so many titles that it's hard for individual publishers to stand out) and it's common sense store behaviour. I'd do it, too, if I had a store.

As a contrary data point, I'll note that I've sold very little of WotBS at Paizo - so I'd guess their marketing is centered around their own brand.  That's totally reasonable, though.



> I don't believe any of 3rd party 4E publisher has had similar contact with Wizards. It was very nice knowing in advance that Paizo was perfectly ok with what I was doing before launching, riding so close to their IP.




I'll agree with that - with the caveat that I haven't tried to do so. But no, I wouldn't expect that from WotC.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 10, 2011)

Morrus said:


> As a contrary data point, I'll note that I've sold very little of WotBS at Paizo - so I'd guess their marketing is centered around their own brand.  That's totally reasonable, though.




To highlight plenty of stuff that nothing to do with Paizo's IP and would be difficult to use it with Pathfinder (again the last month): Boardgames, Cthulhu mints, Various DVDs, D&D Fortune cards, The D&D Board Game, and Munchkin.

I have the PDFs to my Traveller print book there as well but they don't sell, not a one. Reason I have them there is so customers that buy the print book there get instant access to the PDF for free. I wouldn't bother putting them there if it were not for that. I just wouldn't expect them to sell there. Those that frequent the Paizo boards aren't huge Traveller players. Same reason why I don't have any products at YourGamesNow.


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Converting stuff to 3E is a bother. Check.




Snarky or serious?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> To highlight plenty of stuff that nothing to do with Paizo's IP and would be difficult to use it with Pathfinder (again the last month): Boardgames, Cthulhu mints, Various DVDs, D&D Fortune cards, The D&D Board Game, and Munchkin.




I'm not disagreeing that Paizo does not promote products it's selling in its store. I'd be gobsmacked if they didn't - that's what stores do. 

As I said above, the prime difference between Paizo's and WotC's strategy seems to be rooted in the store.  It'd be interesting to see how WotC would handle it if it were in the online RPG store marketspace, but that's not really their thing.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 10, 2011)

Morrus said:


> As I said above, the prime difference between Paizo's and WotC's strategy seems to be rooted in the store.  It'd be interesting to see how WotC would handle it if it were in the online RPG store marketspace, but that's not really their thing.




They have their own online store. It sells DDI subscriptions and they don't sell anyone else's products.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> They have their own online store. It sells DDI subscriptions and they don't sell anyone else's products.




I don't think we're in disagreement here, but I think that expecting WotC to open a general RPG store like Paizo's is a bit much. That's a whole new area of business. Paizo and DTRPG/RPGNow got in there early and are doing very well out of it.

Opening a general RPG store is not WotC area of expertise; and the market is pretty much dominated by Paizo and DTRPG/RPGNow already.

Paizo is an online vendor, and has been for ages, in addition to its publishing work.  WotC is a just a publisher, albeit a large one.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 10, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> I think the difference is, you have experience with both systems.  Those of us who never played 4E would be fighting rules ignorance while trying to translate.






renau1g said:


> I think story ideas, NPC's, etc would be easy to grab. I do it all the time from my old Dungeon mags. I still read them despite not playe 3e anymore. Paizo's NPC's are very well developed and I find it a huge time saver. I've grabbed some stuff from WotBS even if I don't likely plan to run it from start to finish.
> 
> Oh, and maps. Maps are always great to have, even if you can't use the encounter they're built for.




What renau1g said, except that I do grab the entire story arcs. Story arcs are edition neutral as far as I'm concerned, so I won't pass up what sounds like a well-written one just because I am unfamiliar with the ruleset. You only need know the rules you are playing in and adapt as needed.



ShinHakkaider said:


> Of course, all of that goes out of the window if the adventure is really awesome though.




This is what I was trying to say.



enrious said:


> Snarky or serious?




A lot of both. 

Actually it is the main reason I stopped playing 3E. I was having to "convert" modules written for 3E because they were too easy or too difficult for my group. Normally I would call this "adapting," but the amount of time I spent "adapting" modules written for 3E for my 3E game is much greater than the time it takes me to "convert" a 3E module to 4E.


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

EDIT: stupid forums, timeouts are for kids


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Actually it is the main reason I stopped playing 3E. I was having to "convert" modules written for 3E because they were too easy or too difficult for my group. Normally I would call this "adapting," but the amount of time I spent "adapting" modules written for 3E for my 3E game is much greater than the time it takes me to "convert" a 3E module to 4E.




*shrug* I find converting for 3e to be pretty easy, generally speaking.

The catch, and why your snarkiness only makes you look bad given the reason you espoused, was already mentioned.

I know virtually nothing of 4e, so I'd have to learn it first in order to properly translate.

That doesn't mean that adapting/converting/translating (or using whatever euphamism makes you look better) is as hard, less hard, or harder than doing the same for 4e.

Simply that for me it's a non sequitor.

Somewhat odd, really, when up until this point, I don't think any of us have actually sniped the other's system of choice.

And you say you only need to know story arcs and you may be right, although if that boils down to a page of text per module, then it's a waste of money.

If, as Morrus and others indicate, it's substantially more work due to the different inherent assumptions made in both systems (such as when Fly is available), then there's more work than merely grabbing the arc.

Else, I'm at the point I always am - not buying an adventure because I can do it myself.

so the tl;dr version:  Good job, you were snarky because you still equate being right with "winning".   The fact that you weren't right to begin with changes nothing.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think you're both going to miss out on some good material in the future if you continue with this attitude.




Well, yeah. And I'm sure you've missed out on some awesome cricket tournaments.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Actually it is the main reason I stopped playing 3E. I was having to "convert" modules written for 3E because they were too easy or too difficult for my group. Normally I would call this "adapting," but the amount of time I spent "adapting" modules written for 3E for my 3E game is much greater than the time it takes me to "convert" a 3E module to 4E.



 *Shrug* I was able to convert on the fly - generally by not bothering. The differences were minor enough to pretty much ignore.

Time taken: zero. It is very hard to get a shorter time than that.

I really never saw the changes between 3 and 3.5 as being all that massive. I did see people blowing the changes out of proportion though.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 10, 2011)

enrious said:


> *shrug* I find converting for 3e to be pretty easy, generally speaking.




What are you converting, if I may ask? We know it's not 4E modules, as you won't even look at them.



enrious said:


> The catch, and why your snarkiness only makes you look bad given the reason you espoused, was already mentioned.
> 
> I know virtually nothing of 4e, so I'd have to learn it first in order to properly translate.




"Properly" is certainly subjective. I can understand that you may not be able to convert a 4E module to your satisfaction. My main point wasn't "BUY STUFF FROM MY EDITION!" It was that you should not ignore material entirely from a company with a reputation for good work (like Paizo or ENWorld) simply because it doesn't fit your edition of choice. For example, I can't think of one WotC 4E module I would recommend to someone for conversion to any other game.



enrious said:


> That doesn't mean that adapting/converting/translating (or using whatever euphamism makes you look better) is as hard, less hard, or harder than doing the same for 4e.
> 
> Simply that for me it's a non sequitor.




I thought I was clear that it was an issue for me. If you want to imply that I was applying my mileage to anyone else, you are mistaken.



enrious said:


> Somewhat odd, really, when up until this point, I don't think any of us have actually sniped the other's system of choice.




What's really odd is that you would bring up the Edition War Defense when I didn't attack any edition. I espoused the support I give Paizo in buying their adventure paths and using them in the edition of my choice. I agreed with you jokingly about the "bother" it is to convert, which apparently isn't a bother anymore because it's so easy for you. And I stated why *I* stopped playing your edition of choice. There was no intent to snipe anyone's game of choice. Obviously there was some humor that missed its mark, but that is the danger of comedy, especially in gaming. Because. Gaming. Is. Serious. Business.



enrious said:


> And you say you only need to know story arcs and you may be right, although if that boils down to a page of text per module, then it's a waste of money.




I'm sure the writers at Paizo and here at ENWorld would love to hear that enrious thinks their creativity is a waste of money. That's the most important part of any adventure to me, the creative ideas the writers come up with. Adapting the crunch is the easy part compared to that, even for me in 3E.



enrious said:


> If, as Morrus and others indicate, it's substantially more work due to the different inherent assumptions made in both systems (such as when Fly is available), then there's more work than merely grabbing the arc.




There is validity to what Morrus and others have said. And those concerns lie on the side of the system you *are* using, IMO, not the game you are converting from.



enrious said:


> Else, I'm at the point I always am - not buying an adventure because I can do it myself.




If you can do something as creative as War of the Burning Sky (which I've enjoyed as a player), Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves, etc., please, please, please get a job with ENWorld or Paizo, or start your own company. Then I would buy what your selling too.



enrious said:


> so the tl;dr version:  Good job, you were snarky because you still equate being right with "winning".   The fact that you weren't right to begin with changes nothing.




Wasn't trying to win or be right, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just sharing my opinions and personal experiences as people are wont to do on a message board.



pawsplay said:


> Well, yeah. And I'm sure you've missed out on some awesome cricket tournaments.




I'm sure I haven't. Nor have I missed any interesting futbol games. This is all in my personal opinion, of course. Please don't riot.


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> *Shrug* I was able to convert on the fly - generally by not bothering. The differences were minor enough to pretty much ignore.
> 
> Time taken: zero. It is very hard to get a shorter time than that.
> 
> ...




Nor I.  Any adapting of 3.0, 3.5, or even Pathfinder stuff for my 3.5 or Pathfinder games have been done on the fly.  Pun intended.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 10, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> *Shrug* I was able to convert on the fly - generally by not bothering. The differences were minor enough to pretty much ignore.
> 
> Time taken: zero. It is very hard to get a shorter time than that.
> 
> ...




I've never been able to run on the fly with D&D for some reason. I could do it with my eyes closed running Shadowrun though.

My problems compounded from my personal preferences. I *love* options. The more new options available the giddier I would get. The problem with those new options in 3E in the hands of my system masters was that they could create REALLY powerful characters. This wouldn't be a problem if my entire table was filled with system masters. The power gap between them and the rest of the group kept creeping toward the point where I felt like we were playing Rifts. The system masters had Mega-damage armor and weapons, while the rest of the group did not. To challenge the system masters spelled death for the rest. To challenge the rest lead to cake-walks dominated by the system masters. Neither way were the majority of the group having fun. And I wasn't having fun trying to balance such a wide gap. This isn't an edition war thing to me. I was ready to quit 3E before 4E was ever announced.


----------



## DiasExMachina (Mar 10, 2011)

Just to clarify a few points with the original letter:

I mention that the sales of 3PP PF and 3PP 4E appears to indicate that sales for 3PP PF is greater, given the number of companies shifting away from 4E.  At no point did the letter state that the sales of either of the franchises was greater than the other.

I mention both the GSL forum and the Partnership page.  I value them both; I was only hoping WOTC could go a bit further to stave the migration of 3PP companies, which I still insist is in Wizard's interest (market share, sales, blah blah).

In the one case, if Wizards does classify us as a "partners", that does shift the arugment more to aiding these companies over ignoring them.

But look, I was trying to encourage a dialogue with the public an WOTC and offer suggestions that I thought would work, helping Wizards as much as it helps us (helps us more, I admit, but if it helps them even a tiny bit, it can justify the effort).  It wasn't my intent to fuel the conflict about which was the better system.  It wasn't my intent to appear lazy or ignorant to the situation.  I got three book coming at least this year regardless of any response from WOTC.  I never said I hated Paizo or Pathfinder.  I have no experience with them whatsoever.  

Maybe Jerry Holkins is right; maybe I am the black goat with a thousand young.


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What are you converting, if I may ask? We know it's not 4E modules, as you won't even look at them.




See above.





> "Properly" is certainly subjective. I can understand that you may not be able to convert a 4E module to your satisfaction. My main point wasn't "BUY STUFF FROM MY EDITION!" It was that you should not ignore material entirely from a company with a reputation for good work (like Paizo or ENWorld) simply because it doesn't fit your edition of choice. For example, I can't think of one WotC 4E module I would recommend to someone for conversion to any other game.




I do not have unlimited time in a day or week to work on an adventure for my group.  If the fancy strikes me to buy a prepared adventure, then one that will require a minimum, if any, amount of conversion gets my interest whereas one that very likely would require a greater amount of effort will not.



> I thought I was clear that it was an issue for me. If you want to imply that I was applying my mileage to anyone else, you are mistaken.






> You only need know the rules you are playing in and adapt as needed.




Sorry, no idea where I got the impression you were speaknig for more than yourself. 

No idea at all.



> What's really odd is that you would bring up the Edition War Defense when I didn't attack any edition. I espoused the support I give Paizo in buying their adventure paths and using them in the edition of my choice. I agreed with you jokingly about the "bother" it is to convert, which apparently isn't a bother anymore because it's so easy for you. And I stated why *I* stopped playing your edition of choice. There was no intent to snipe anyone's game of choice. Obviously there was some humor that missed its mark, but that is the danger of comedy, especially in gaming. Because. Gaming. Is. Serious. Business.




No, but if you can't convey the humor, don't even try.  The fact that I had to ask if you were being snarky when you said, "Converting stuff to 3E is a bother. Check."  

But no, really my fault for thinking when you said were indeed being snarky that you were indeed speaking for more than yourself.

My bad.



> I'm sure the writers at Paizo and here at ENWorld would love to hear that enrious thinks their creativity is a waste of money. That's the most important part of any adventure to me, the creative ideas the writers come up with. Adapting the crunch is the easy part compared to that, even for me in 3E.




I'm sure they don't care.  And nice strawman you've erected, would you like me to give a match to light it?

I said if I purchased an adventure and I was only able to use one page from it (regardless of what's on that page), then it'd be a waste of my money.

Keep trying to win though.  It totally scores you points with someone, I'm sure.  Let me know when the fight's over.




> There is validity to what Morrus and others have said. And those concerns lie on the side of the system you *are* using, IMO, not the game you are converting from.




Absolutely, just as converting a 3.5/Pathfinder for 4e would likely not be a minor undertaing.  A point I very much agree with.




> If you can do something as creative as War of the Burning Sky (which I've enjoyed as a player), Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves, etc., please, please, please get a job with ENWorld or Paizo, or start your own company. Then I would buy what your selling too.




Oh gosh darn it, aren't you so cute, thinking you'll win a non-fight by putting words into other people's mouths.

You're soo cute when you think you sound adult.

*pinches cheeks*




> Wasn't trying to win or be right, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just sharing my opinions and personal experiences as people are wont to do on a message board.




Right, I totally understand you say you aren't.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 10, 2011)

enrious said:


> See above.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Reported for flaming and massive condescension.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 10, 2011)

me too, missed your post Aberzanzorax, sorry mods


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I've never been able to run on the fly with D&D for some reason. I could do it with my eyes closed running Shadowrun though.
> 
> My problems compounded from my personal preferences. I *love* options. The more new options available the giddier I would get. The problem with those new options in 3E in the hands of my system masters was that they could create REALLY powerful characters. This wouldn't be a problem if my entire table was filled with system masters. The power gap between them and the rest of the group kept creeping toward the point where I felt like we were playing Rifts. The system masters had Mega-damage armor and weapons, while the rest of the group did not. To challenge the system masters spelled death for the rest. To challenge the rest lead to cake-walks dominated by the system masters. Neither way were the majority of the group having fun. And I wasn't having fun trying to balance such a wide gap. This isn't an edition war thing to me. I was ready to quit 3E before 4E was ever announced.




I guess I'm lucky.  My players know I'm a great min-maxer and being the DM, I automatically win any arms race.

So we sit down and have fun without all the fussin' and a-feudin'.


----------



## enrious (Mar 10, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Reported for flaming and massive condescension.




That's fine, Mr. Pot.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 10, 2011)

LOL.

Care to quote where I came close to the level of scorn that you did with "pinches cheeks"?


If so, report me as well.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 10, 2011)

Ladies and gentlemen,

We expect you to show respect for your fellow users.  We don't care if you disagree, or how exasperating you may find them to be.  Being a jerk about it isn't acceptable.  

Please continue as if enrious won't be joining the conversation further.  Thank you.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 10, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> *Shrug* I was able to convert on the fly - generally by not bothering. The differences were minor enough to pretty much ignore.
> 
> Time taken: zero. It is very hard to get a shorter time than that.
> 
> ...




I don't think YB was talking about 3e to 3.5e, he was talking about same edition. Ex. a lot of the Paizo ones were meat grinders, very challenging encounters, very little opportunity to rest, and I loved them. However, my group would rate just below 1 on a 1-10 scale of optimization skill (not a one played a druid or wizard or cleric, just had a wand or 3 of CLW to heal up after fights) and so I had to cut, trim, delevel, etc. to make them work for my group. 

My experience with 4e conversion has been similar to VB's, when I changed Kingmaker over, it took me around 1/2 hour to convert the entire module to my game, including fluff tweaks to fit my world. I know it took me much longer in 3e to do the same, even though it was the same edition. The e-tools help a lot.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 10, 2011)

DiasExMachina said:


> <snip>
> In the one case, if Wizards does classify us as a "partners", that does shift the arugment more to aiding these companies over ignoring them.
> 
> But look, I was trying to encourage a dialogue with the public an WOTC and offer suggestions that I thought would work, helping Wizards as much as it helps us (helps us more, I admit, but if it helps them even a tiny bit, it can justify the effort). It wasn't my intent to fuel the conflict about which was the better system. It wasn't my intent to appear lazy or ignorant to the situation. I got three book coming at least this year regardless of any response from WOTC. I never said I hated Paizo or Pathfinder. I have no experience with them whatsoever.
> ...




I thought your letter was sincere and useful, but not convincing. (I'll try to make that clearer).

While I don't think you were in any way being hurtful or angry toward WotC, I do think you were offering a few things they could do to help yourself and other third party publishers grow and prosper. This is, in my opinion, a fine thing to do. You told them HOW to do it, but you didn't tell them WHY to do it.


I don't think the letter (as has been discussed in this thread) offered WotC many reasons as to why it was beneficial TO THEM.


I think to you, myself, and perhaps some others, there are reasons that are so obvious they seem not even worth mentioning. On the other hand, the fact that WotC ISN'T doing this, in some ways, shows the necessity of mentioning what may be obvious to us, but they may have reasons (perhaps very good reasons) of disagreeing.


I forked this thread to a brainstorm of possible reasons why WotC should support third party publishers, not only to be nice, but because I do think it may truly be within their best interests.

Here's the forked thread as a potential clean slate:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-in...od-wizards-coast-support-3pps-brainstorm.html


----------



## DiasExMachina (Mar 10, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I thought your letter was sincere and useful, but not convincing. (I'll try to make that clearer).
> 
> I don't think the letter (as has been discussed in this thread) offered WotC many reasons as to why it was beneficial TO THEM.
> 
> ...





Yes!  That's exactly the kind of post I wanted to read. 
Honestly, I thought I did give reasons when I mentioned market share and product penetration.  Perhaps it got lost in my intent.  For that, I apologize.  
I offered that since the GSL requires that we refference definitions and not copy them, it encourages people wanting to play within our settings to purchase the core books.  I understand this is a chicken/egg situation, as I assume most people play D&D and THEN seek out campaign settings, not the other way around (if I'm incorrect in that assumption, then it plays in my favor).  As for market share, it does help a product line when you look to a shelf (real or virtual) and see hundreds of products for a rule system instead of a dozen or so.  

I know the online store was the biggest reach, and I mentioned that in the letter.  But it is also the only proposal that assures a return for WOTC.  They may not endorse selling D&D PDFs but that doesnt stop the rest of us, and taking a share of each sale could work in their favor.  The reason why they wouldn't do it is the fear that our sales would cut into theirs (which I doubt) or (most likely) the logistics to setup an online store for products they don't produce may be too great compared to potential returns.  Given the success of the Paizo store and RPGNow, I believe the business model to be valid.

The hardest point to prove is consumer opinion.  It appears so arbitrary and difficult to quantify.  I am sure there are camps that insist that public opinion towards WOTC is and has always been high.  I think it could stand to improve but it may not be a factor in their business practice.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 10, 2011)

enrious said:


> I do not have unlimited time in a day or week to work on an adventure for my group.  If the fancy strikes me to buy a prepared adventure, then one that will require a minimum, if any, amount of conversion gets my interest whereas one that very likely would require a greater amount of effort will not.




Weren't you the one that agreed with another poster that you were able to convert in zero time, on-the-fly? I don't believe the fundamental concepts between the two systems are as large as you assume. Conversion of the crunch should be a snap for anyone who can accomplish it on the fly.



enrious said:


> Sorry, no idea where I got the impression you were speaknig for more than yourself. No idea at all.




It gets tiresome typing "IMO" over and over when one has established that they are sharing their opinion already. Sorry for any confusion this may cause. From now on everyone can assume that IMO sits invisibly at the front of each sentence I type. When I state a fact I'll call it out. Reasonable everyone? 



enrious said:


> No, but if you can't convey the humor, don't even try. The fact that I had to ask if you were being snarky when you said, "Converting stuff to 3E is a bother. Check." But no, really my fault for thinking when you said were indeed being snarky that you were indeed speaking for more than yourself. My bad.




You've missed half of my tone though. I was serious in regards to my personal experiences with 3E. I was being snarky in the way I conveyed it. Sorry the joke hit a nerve.



enrious said:


> I'm sure they don't care.  And nice strawman you've erected, would you like me to give a match to light it?
> 
> I said if I purchased an adventure and I was only able to use one page from it (regardless of what's on that page), then it'd be a waste of my money.




I was reading past the hyperbole. Not many of us would buy an adventure we were only able to use one page worth of material from, too obvious. The flip side would be that you were saying that the fine products of ENWorld and/or Paizo (the specific products that were being discussed) only have one page worth of usable material to someone who does not use the edition the adventure was written for. I obviously disagree. I get alot of value from the storyline, which constitutes much more than one page worth of material.



enrious said:


> Absolutely, just as converting a 3.5/Pathfinder for 4e would likely not be a minor undertaing.  A point I very much agree with.




IME, it took me more time to ready an adventure written for 3.5 to use with 3.5 than it does for me to convert an adventure from 3.5/Pathfinder to 4E.



enrious said:


> I guess I'm lucky.  My players know I'm a great min-maxer and being the DM, I automatically win any arms race.
> 
> So we sit down and have fun without all the fussin' and a-feudin'.




I don't try to win against my players. I try to offer a fun evening of D&D. And I was no longer able to do that with the power gap that had occurred in 3E at our table. There were many solutions to "fix" this problem, but none of them were satisfactory for our group.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 10, 2011)

(One of ) Stated 4e Design Goals: Make it easier to DM

Standard GM Responsibilities: Running the game, creating campaign through framework of PCs, NPCs, adventures, & campaign setting.

WotC View on Adventures: 
Don’t generate enough revenue to justify large focus in business plan.

Customer-base View on WotC Adventures: The ones that are published or released in Dungeon are not considered above-average (generally speaking)

Campaign Settings: Current business plan is targeted number of books and then move on.

WotC’s business plan provides limited support of two “cornerstone” RPG elements: Adventures & Setting.

Campaign sustainability, & by extension, 4e longevity & popularity requires adventures and setting.

Expecting the GMs to handle those elements on their own appeals to the homebrew-style GM, yet requires greater GM time investment.  For many GMs, this now runs counter to the Stated 4e Design Goal cited above.

Unless WotC believes that the majority of D&D players opt for a beer-n-pretzels style “pickup game” approach to D&D, (which, like it or not, a large portion of the RPG fanbase views as a “shallower” RPG experience), it would seem that WotC should be doing one of the following:
1. Providing greater quantity and better quality support in terms of adventures & setting.
2. Encouraging 3PP to fill these two niches so they can focus on the game elements that best fit their business plan.

Tell me again how it’s *not* beneficial for WotC to have 3PP support?!?


----------



## Obryn (Mar 11, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> As I said, evidence in this case does not involve some kind of bizarre experiement on two alternate universes.  The best evidence is going to be inductive reasoning based on an accumulation of facts. One solitary fact is not much evidence, but many facts make it possible to step beyond.
> 
> I could very well be a mutant eggplant, depending on how skeptical you are willing to be.
> 
> When the belief in two alternative viewpoints seems to relate with unusual frequency to some personal interest, that should suggest to the philosophic mind that the question is a prism of our biases.



Getting back to this, as promised.

It'd be silly to say that running a double-blind study is the only way to gain knowledge.  But it's also silly to argue that the best available information is sufficient simply because it's the best information we have.

This whole debate is because you argued that a collection of anecdotes is the same thing as data.  It's not, and never is.  But there's also a range of options that adhere to more rigorous standards of evidence than collecting convenient stories from people you know.  These standards of evidence are necessary precisely _because_ of peoples' biases.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Mar 11, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I think you are demonstrating my point here.



I think if you're ignoring the fact that gamers who have different purchasing habits are possibly quite different populations, that you're demonstrating my point that not enough people know about proper sampling when they're dealing with uncertain data.

Leaping to conclusions based on poor data isn't helpful.  Nor is insisting on decent standards of evidence, denial of the obvious.



> I agree that there is some, even significant, uncertainty around the data we have.  My point is not that there is proof beyond any hint of a doubt.
> 
> But no one is even identifying "missing pieces".  We have a collection of pieces that consistently point in the same clear direction.
> 
> Your strict absolutist standard drives the discussion deeply into the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" territory.  There comes a point when reasonable conclusions may be reached.  It isn't even a question of "prove/nullify" but rather a matter of degree of accuracy.  Trying to argue that we are not enough "in the ballpark" to have a reasonable conversation seriously misses the forest for the trees.



There's pretty much always a point at which reasonable conclusions can be reached.  The question is, which conclusions?

Frankly, though, there's a point at which a discussion is so vague as to be basically useless.  I'd say we're at this point.  If you want to talk specific data and specific conclusions, we can continue this line of discussion, no problem.

-O


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 11, 2011)

renau1g said:


> I don't think YB was talking about 3e to 3.5e, he was talking about same edition. Ex. a lot of the Paizo ones were meat grinders, very challenging encounters, very little opportunity to rest, and I loved them. However, my group would rate just below 1 on a 1-10 scale of optimization skill (not a one played a druid or wizard or cleric, just had a wand or 3 of CLW to heal up after fights) and so I had to cut, trim, delevel, etc. to make them work for my group.
> 
> My experience with 4e conversion has been similar to VB's, when I changed Kingmaker over, it took me around 1/2 hour to convert the entire module to my game, including fluff tweaks to fit my world. I know it took me much longer in 3e to do the same, even though it was the same edition. The e-tools help a lot.



Ah, 'kay.  In that case I can understand, a difference in terminology. 

I tend to use the term '3e' for 3rd edition, '3.5' for, well, 3.5 and '3.X' for the generic term.

I _have_ heard that some of the Paizo Dungeon adventures were brutal, but then again they looked about right to me....  Kingmaker is looking awesome, and I can definitely understand converting it.

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 11, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I've never been able to run on the fly with D&D for some reason. I could do it with my eyes closed running Shadowrun though.
> 
> My problems compounded from my personal preferences. I *love* options. The more new options available the giddier I would get. The problem with those new options in 3E in the hands of my system masters was that they could create REALLY powerful characters. This wouldn't be a problem if my entire table was filled with system masters. The power gap between them and the rest of the group kept creeping toward the point where I felt like we were playing Rifts. The system masters had Mega-damage armor and weapons, while the rest of the group did not. To challenge the system masters spelled death for the rest. To challenge the rest lead to cake-walks dominated by the system masters. Neither way were the majority of the group having fun. And I wasn't having fun trying to balance such a wide gap. This isn't an edition war thing to me. I was ready to quit 3E before 4E was ever announced.



Heh, _running_ on the fly is something that I just _can't_ do, regardless of game or edition. 

Conversion, no problem, but I need a framework to build on. So I am generally working on the next adventure while running the current one. The upside is that when I am done my notes are copious enough that I can run the scenario again years later. I can substitute, fake, and bend things, but I need that framework. 

Improv is something that I just can't do.

I don't think that I have ever had anyone try to master the system, my players, gods bless 'em, want to play, not beat the game. Then again, a lot of my players used to be LARPers, so it is not unknown for an entire session in my Steampunk game to be spent on in character conversation and dining. Used to drive me crazy, now I do the cooking. (Lobscouse and dead man's arm anyone?)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Matt James (Mar 11, 2011)

I love lamp.


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 11, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I love lamp.




Huh?


----------



## Dilandau Kale (Mar 11, 2011)

An open letter of a diffrent sort (but still related) happens in the following links

paizo.com - Error

Rite Designs: AN OPEN LETTER TO PAIZO: THANK YOU

Edit Ignore the fact the Paizo link says error


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 11, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I love lamp.




Do you _really _love the lamp? 

This whole thing should serve as a depressing wake up call to those who feel that a hobby should provide a secure living.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 11, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> Huh?




 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CPwOOK4nEM]YouTube - I Love Lamp![/ame]


----------



## lrsach01 (Mar 11, 2011)

Morrus said:


> As a contrary data point, I'll note that I've sold very little of WotBS at Paizo - so I'd guess their marketing is centered around their own brand.  That's totally reasonable, though.




Is it possible that the reason you haven't sold many copies has nothing to do with marketing? Some other reasons:

1. WotBS is either D20 or 4e and not Pathfinder. Given a choice of adventure paths, one made with the Rathfinder rules and no need to convert will probably get the dollar.
2. WotBS is not a new product for d20 and the rush of d20 buyers has past.
3. EN Publishing is prominent in all WotBS material so prospective buyers go THERE rather than Paizo.

I certainly bought WotBS long ago through ENWorld and not Paizo MAINLY because I'm an ENWorld reader. I read about the product HERE and followed the supplied links HERE.

When I go to Paizo's site, I see whatever they are pushing that day... and it DOES change daily. I don't know how they choose what is on the front page but I do know that it's not always... maybe not even usually, their own products. Of course, the "PATHFINDER" banners mitigate that fact.


----------



## czak (Mar 11, 2011)

I believe Lisa Stevens picks the front page products and the terrible puns for the headlines


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 11, 2011)

renau1g said:


> YouTube - I Love Lamp!



Heh, my brain was still stuck on Steampunk cookery - I was thinking that lamp stood for lamprey. (Which is actually pretty good - meatier tasting than many eels, a bit salmony when smoked.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## billd91 (Mar 11, 2011)

Obryn said:


> No, no matter how many anecdotes you compile, it's not data.  It's just a collection of anecdotes.
> 
> Rigor and control in obtaining data is crucial.  Anecdotes have neither, no matter how many of them you compile.  Methodology is everything; without proper methodology, all of your data is suspect.  An experiment is not an anecdote; it's a strictly controlled set of measurements and conditions.




Rigor and control are important in collecting data for statistical analysis, but let's not misuse the term anecdote (something this thread has already been doing). If a publisher reports that his PF version of product A is selling better than his 4e version of product A, presuming he actually knows his sales information, that's not an anecdote. That is data.
We can use this information in either an anecdotal fashion or treat them in a rigorous fashion through additional data handling and collection.

EDIT: Guess I should have read ahead more, I've largely been ninjaed - but reading through the thread the tossing around of anecdote was getting to me...


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 11, 2011)

Obryn said:


> But it's also silly to argue that the best available information is sufficient simply because it's the best information we have.




So you are saying the best available information is insufficient. What do you mean by insufficient? You can wish it were anything you like, but if it's the best information you have, it's the best you have. This is not an arbitrary puzzle. Whether or not you are satisifed with data points being discussed, it is simply true that people are going to discuss and make decisions about the future of the industry based on the information at hand. 

If you simply refuse to draw a conclusion, that itself is a significant decision.



> This whole debate is because you argued that a collection of anecdotes is the same thing as data.  It's not, and never is.




I'm sticking with the line: "The plural of anecdote is data." You can claim that no data can be drawn from a raw source of information that includes anecdotes, but it doesn't make sense to me, and until you can explain how that can possibly be true, rather than asserting it, you're going to sound crazy to me. It just doesn't make sense. Anything could be data, if looked at rigorously.

Research, surely, means analyzing data, not manufacturing it. 



> But there's also a range of options that adhere to more rigorous standards of evidence than collecting convenient stories from people you know.  These standards of evidence are necessary precisely _because_ of peoples' biases.




You are welcome to conjecture how so many sales sources have managed to produce the same "bias."


----------



## Marius Delphus (Mar 11, 2011)

What seems to be missing from all this is something kind of basic, I think:

*What is the hypothesis to be proved, and how strong is the evidence that the hypothesis is true or false?*

For example, if the hypothesis is "extraterrestrials kidnapped me," no number of anecdotes from me or anyone else is going to suffice to prove that hypothesis to a reasonable degree of certainty. Something stronger would, and should, be required.

However, if the hypothesis is "I believe extraterrestrials kidnapped me," my word in the matter should be enough to prove the hypothesis. Of course, some may wonder why I believe such a thing, that corresponds to no known physical fact....

[EDIT: And it's okay to reserve judgment, to say that the jury's still out on a given hypothesis, when no evidence is strong enough to _either_ confirm or deny the hypothesis. Really. If we don't know something, then we don't know it.]


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 12, 2011)

Marius Delphus said:


> What seems to be missing from all this is something kind of basic, I think:
> 
> *What is the hypothesis to be proved, and how strong is the evidence that the hypothesis is true or false?*
> 
> ...



That's okay, _I_ believe aliens kidnapped you, even if nobody else does. 



The Auld Grump, while it is true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I doubt that the claim that D&D is not making as much money as it could is in any way extraordinary....


----------



## Obryn (Mar 12, 2011)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Rigor and control are important in collecting data for statistical analysis, but let's not misuse the term anecdote (something this thread has already been doing). If a publisher reports that his PF version of product A is selling better than his 4e version of product A, presuming he actually knows his sales information, that's not an anecdote. That is data.
> We can use this information in either an anecdotal fashion or treat them in a rigorous fashion through additional data handling and collection.
> 
> EDIT: Guess I should have read ahead more, I've largely been ninjaed - but reading through the thread the tossing around of anecdote was getting to me...



No, I agree 100% that sales figures can be a great data point.

However, I think it's important to get a good sample of those sales figures - simple spontaneous volunteering of information from publishers on websites poses some population bias concerns - but sales figures can be great data.



pawsplay said:


> So you are saying the best available information is insufficient. What do you mean by insufficient? You can wish it were anything you like, but if it's the best information you have, it's the best you have. This is not an arbitrary puzzle. Whether or not you are satisifed with data points being discussed, it is simply true that people are going to discuss and make decisions about the future of the industry based on the information at hand.
> 
> If you simply refuse to draw a conclusion, that itself is a significant decision.



Right, it will be discussed, and if it doesn't meet any standards of evidence, that will likely be discussed, too.



> I'm sticking with the line: "The plural of anecdote is data." You can claim that no data can be drawn from a raw source of information that includes anecdotes, but it doesn't make sense to me, and until you can explain how that can possibly be true, rather than asserting it, you're going to sound crazy to me. It just doesn't make sense. Anything could be data, if looked at rigorously.
> 
> Research, surely, means analyzing data, not manufacturing it.



_Again, _it's not whether or not your data "includes anecdotes."  *It's how that information is collected.  *The methodology is what's important, not whether or not your methodology picked up data in the form of narratives or what you'd colloquially call anecdotes.  I think you're missing this critical distinction, and I don't know if I can explain it any other way.



> You are welcome to conjecture how so many sales sources have managed to produce the same "bias."



No, I actually have little doubt about _this specific case _that most publishers show low sales of 4e 3rd party products.

Conjectures as to _why_ this is happening are what's generally unsupported.  I also think it's an open question whether or not a thriving 3pp community would help WotC's sales.

You could do a survey of gamers and try and find out - but a survey of gamers who visit game stores or gamers who visit various forum sites is going to display population bias almost by default.

It's your generalized statement that "anecdotes in quantity = data" that I am objecting to.

-O


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 12, 2011)

Obryn said:


> _Again, _it's not whether or not your data "includes anecdotes."  *It's how that information is collected.  *The methodology is what's important, not whether or not your methodology picked up data in the form of narratives or what you'd colloquially call anecdotes.  I think you're missing this critical distinction, and I don't know if I can explain it any other way.




I think you're clear enough, I just can't a discern a point, other than, "I hate what you are saying."



> No, I actually have little doubt about _this specific case _that most publishers show low sales of 4e 3rd party products.




So ... are you saying that in this case anecodates = data, or are you saying you're making a decision based on no data? And what would Karl Popper say?



> Conjectures as to _why_ this is happening are what's generally unsupported.




Not sure what this has to be do with our discussion, but you could be right.



> I also think it's an open question whether or not a thriving 3pp community would help WotC's sales.




It is. Of course, it's probably going to be difficult to answer that question if you throw out any evidence you don't like.



> You could do a survey of gamers and try and find out - but a survey of gamers who visit game stores or gamers who visit various forum sites is going to display population bias almost by default.




They probably don't know what they want anyway.



> It's your generalized statement that "anecdotes in quantity = data" that I am objecting to.
> 
> -O




Object away. I have William James on my side. Also, as has been pointed out, you're equivocating on the term "anecdote." An anecdote can be a short account of something. It can also be an unsubstantiated story. It's true, unsubstantiated stories are poor evidence, and hence "anecdotal evidence" is not considered a good source of data. However, it is not true that short accounts of things are inherently poor evidence. I have no reason to doubt the answers I was given. 

Did I make the argument that all anecdotes in quantity = quality data? No, I did not. I simply indicated that in some informal surveys, the data I received suggested something. You seem to agree, funnily enough.

What do you want, Obryn? If you're waiting for me to retract my philosophical position, you're going to be waiting a long time. I've had several classes on advanced research, and I briefly minored in Philosophy. If my professors  couldn't cure me of my ignorance, I doubt you can. Are you trying to convince me that I shouldn't believe what I've heard? That seems odd, since you seem to believe it provisionally yourself. Are you trying to argue on behalf of the scientific method? I am myself a scientist, but we are not discussing a clinical study. If you just don't like the sentence, "The plural of anecdote is data," you are not alone: the opposite is almost equally as popular a quotation. However, I reject the reactionary viewpoint. 

Without our histories, that is, without our personal, subjective anecdotes, we have nothing at all. I think I think, therefore I think I am. 

Less broadly, there is no reason I can discern to suspect the information under discussion means anything other than what it seems to: Pathfinder dominates 4e in the 3pp market. You may quibble with my approach to this conclusion, but if you agree with the conclusion, I am disinclined to join the quibble. If you say I am right, then I will say you are right, too. But if you say I am right, but for the wrong reasons, I am not going to justify my reasoning to you, because neither you nor I have much to gain from that. It is acceptable to me to be disunited in mind. My whole purpose in my remarks was to persuade someone, perhaps several people, to consider the case. Since you have now stated you agree with my original argument, my motivation to speak with you on etiology, at this time, at this place, has evaporated. I do not need to persuade you, and I do not care to be persuaded by you.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 12, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I think you're clear enough, I just can't a discern a point, other than, "I hate what you are saying."



Then you're missing my point completely, and given that I think it's about as clear as I can be, that's where it will have to rest.



> So ... are you saying that in this case anecodates = data, or are you saying you're making a decision based on no data? And what would Karl Popper say?



No, I'm saying that I personally have little doubt.  I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't believe, and I'm not saying that my belief has any weight here.  I'm not inclined to debate the point, though I think there's certainly _room _for such a debate.  Seriously, getting from where we are now to useful data is easy on this point.

I've been pretty clear in my terminology so far - namely, that a collection of anecdotes, collected without methodology, is useless data.  (This includes walking around to hobby shops and asking people, convenience samples, and self-selected volunteer information, among many other types.)  And that no matter how many you collect, without methodology or rigor it will always be useless data.  You're conflating the definitions of "anecdotal data" and "Real data composed of anecdotes."  These are very different things.



> Without our histories, that is, without our personal, subjective anecdotes, we have nothing at all. I think I think, therefore I think I am.
> 
> Less broadly, there is no reason I can discern to suspect the information under discussion means anything other than what it seems to: Pathfinder dominates 4e in the 3pp market. You may quibble with my approach to this conclusion, but if you agree with the conclusion, I am disinclined to join the quibble. If you say I am right, then I will say you are right, too. But if you say I am right, but for the wrong reasons, I am not going to justify my reasoning to you, because neither you nor I have much to gain from that. It is acceptable to me to be disunited in mind. My whole purpose in my remarks was to persuade someone, perhaps several people, to consider the case. Since you have now stated you agree with my original argument, my motivation to speak with you on etiology, at this time, at this place, has evaporated. I do not need to persuade you, and I do not care to be persuaded by you.



I didn't enter into this thread to argue the specific point that Pathfinder 3pp sales likely vastly outnumber 4e 3pp sales.  Again, for whatever reasons, I think that is likely true.  (I think there are probably at least four reasons, any one of which could be sufficient.)  I entered into it because the plural of anecdote is not data - just like I said in my very first post on the topic.

-O


----------



## Gorbacz (Mar 12, 2011)

In other news, first we get this:



Morrus said:


> Well, yeah - we deliberately specialize in 4E adventure paths because the massive gap in the market there benefits us.  Frankly, it's an awesome gap, and we'll have another two 4E APs to fill it very soon.
> 
> I daresay that we could not sell a Pathfinder AP because there are so many of them.  It would certainly be a very expensive experiment, given that we spend tens of thousands on an AP over the course of its lifetime.




aaand then we get this: (from http://www.enworld.org/ap/)

EN Publishing is proud to present three fantastic adventure paths for use with DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®  and PATHFINDER™!

ZEITGEIST: An original fantasy adventure path with hints of steampunk for D&D 4th Edition and PATHFINDER RPG.  Starting in Spring 2011.

And even a PF Compatibility License too! Woot! ;-)


----------



## ggroy (Mar 12, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> And what would Karl Popper say?




** On a tangent **

In my experience, I've found that some individuals who like to invoke Karl Popper's falsification all the time, frequently like to use it in conjunction with Occam's Razor.

Essentially for these particular individuals, they don't want to believe.  Popper + Occam are their own personal "weapons in trade", for rationalizing their disbelief in anything and everything.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 12, 2011)

Gorbacz said:


> In other news, first we get this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rats, beaten to it. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Nagol (Mar 12, 2011)

Gorbacz said:


> In other news, first we get this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As was discussed by Morrus here


----------



## ruemere (Mar 12, 2011)

Let the best AP sell.
Let all the other ones succeed, too.

And let's hope that ENWorld doesn't get SLAPPed once GSL is revoked [1].
Morrus is unlikely to be able to shell money to cover lengthy legislation.

Regards,
Ruemere

[1] The WotC/Hasbro _can_ play nice.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 12, 2011)

I obviously can't speak for WotC - I don't know any more about their position on the GSL than is publically available.  But I'm going to hazard a wild-assed-guess as to what they probably thing reading this thread.  This is, of course, utterly a guess.

_"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before.  The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share.  Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"_

From their point-of-view it probably seems that supporting 3PPs with an open license, etc., has lost them revenue - and if the anecdotes in this thead are anything to go by, we're talking a LOT of revenue.

I think we can all argue until we're blue in the face about alleged sales figures, possible benefits to WotC to diverting more resources to support 3PPs, and so on.  But if I were to hazard that guess, this is what I would imagine they're thinking.


----------



## Gorbacz (Mar 12, 2011)

Morrus said:


> I obviously can't speak for WotC - I don't know any more about their position on the GSL than is publically available.  But I'm going to hazard a wild-assed-guess as to what they probably thing reading this thread.  This is, of course, utterly a guess.
> 
> _"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before.  The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share.  Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"_
> 
> ...




This might as well what they are thinking, sure, but here is what they *should* be thinking:

_"Well, it looks like that by a combination of our own catastrophic marketing, business, communication and design blunders we've contributed to a situation where a medium-sized 3PP is now breathing on our neck."_

The OGL existed since 2000 and no company that published games based on it (True20, M&M, C&C, etc.) ever got close to WotC in 8 years. It's not about the OGL, it's about Wizards being stupid.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2011)

Morrus said:


> _"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before.  The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share.  Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"_



I completely agree that this is their point of view and so that answers the issue, conversation over.

BUT

I do think it is wrong.  I think PF is taking very little of "their" market.
The day PF was announced hordes of gaming fans who already knew they were not going to be playing 4E were thrilled.  (Also, hordes of gaming fans who knew they were not going to be playing 4E were apathetic, as demonstrated by the numbers on non-PF 3X hold-outs.)

I'm not claiming the groups are black and white with a wall of force between them.  There is overlap and competition.  But there was already a solid "I want to play RPGs and 4E ain't it" market place.  WotC's market share of that was 0%.  If that market had not existed as a clear foundation to build on, Paizo would not have invested in PF.  WotC can't lose something they don't have.

And, by the same token, Paizo's biggest fear may be a 5th edition that both carries the D&D brand name and DOES appeal to the people who are not interested in 4E.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 12, 2011)

Morrus said:


> I obviously can't speak for WotC - I don't know any more about their position on the GSL than is publically available.  But I'm going to hazard a wild-assed-guess as to what they probably thing reading this thread.  This is, of course, utterly a guess.
> 
> _"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before.  The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share.  Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"_
> 
> ...





If most of the talent that inhabits Paizo, many who formerly worked at WotC, worked at Kenzer, Hackmaster would be looking like PF (not that HM isn't a fun game in its own right).  If most of the talent that inhabits Paizo, many who formerly worked at WotC, worked at EN Publishing, WotBS would be one of two dozen successful APs (not that WotBS isn't great all on its own).  If most of the talent that inhabits Paizo, many who formerly worked at WotC, worked at Green Ronin, M&M would be the system more readily competing with D&D in the FLGSs and elsewhere (not that it isn't doing well, and in part a testament to some former WotC talent).  The OGL is being used as a boogeyman and it is foolish to believe that the talented people at Paizo wouldn't be right where they are today without it.

I don't actually believe that WotC doesn't realize this.  It might be convenient for them to allow others to believe they blame the OGL because then they can continue to avoid using the OGL and pursue their isolationist policies while pushing the DDI.  Creating the OGL isn't their problem, it's turning away from the OGL, because now they cannot cultivate (without investment) new talent to replace the talent they lost over the years.  There are plenty of inteliigent people at WotC who know the OGL isn't the monster that has been created, it is the talent pool, much of which now performs under the Paizo banner (not that Paizo doesn't also have non-former-WotC talent also).


----------



## Pour (Mar 12, 2011)

I read this entire thread and now I realize I should have spent the time playing Dragon Age 2...

I commend full-time WotC, Paizo, Goodman and Green Ronin employees and ex-employees for not posting in here. I'm frankly embarrassed by all the back and forth. At first I thought it'd be informative, and there were some pearls here and there, largely early on. Then it became kind of amusing to see what it transmogrified into. And then, as I continued further along, the amusement passed and I started to get a little frustrated, then discouraged, and yeah, ultimately embarrassed. 

I supposed this isn't constructive to the thread topic, and I can't be held a paragon of virtue or any sort of moral judge (so take what you will from another tangent), but have some of you looked back, truly looked back, on what is amounting now to 19 pages of... honestly I don't even know what to call it?

It's ugly, it's sucking even the best of us in, and it's making the community something I no longer want to be a part of.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 12, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I think PF is taking very little of "their" market.




You cant be serious. If there were no such thing as Pathfinder, more 3.xe people would have followed Wotc regarding their purchases for D&D. Especially if Paizo went on to make quality adventures & APs for 4e. But Paizo did not do this. Instead it tried to transform the 3.5 market to a Pathfinder market. And apparently this was a success for them and a failure for Wotc.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2011)

xechnao said:


> You cant be serious. If there were no such thing as Pathfinder, more 3.xe people would have followed Wotc regarding their purchases for D&D.



I am 100% serious and I am convinced you are completely wrong here.


I'm not confusing my personal anecdote with the overall mood of the market.  But lets start with the one thing I do know.  I know that I was not going to end up playing 4E once I knew the ins and outs of 4E.  Before I ever heard of Pathfinder I had already bought a few new GURPS books, some Warhammer 2E stuff, and was providing some comments to Wulf Ratbane on the "3.75" tweaks that ultimately become his "Trailblazer" product.  I really was not sure where I would have gone, but I knew for certain that I had zero interest in 4E.  Lack of Pathfinder's existence had nothing to do with it.

So that is one little drop in the ocean.

But, I find that of the non-4E players, I tend to be on the "whatever" end.  Yeah, I certainly enjoy arguing.  But in truth I find the issues with 4E to simply make it fair to middling.  It is an ok game in a market with numerous awesome games to choose from.  When I talk to people in meatspace "4E sucks" is a much more common phrase.  

When you say people would have followed WotC you are saying that people would put brand or company identity ahead of personal taste.  I find that absurd.

People don't play 4E because *they don't want to*.  It is that simple.  

Paizo saw that a lot of people didn't want to play 4E and that they had a mechanism for making a game that those people DID want to play.  And they jumped on it.  An absolutely critical piece of the puzzle is "FIRST there was an untapped market".  That market was untapped because WotC led somewhere a lot of people didn't want to go.  And they were not going to blindly follow.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 12, 2011)

BryonD said:


> When you say people would have followed WotC you are saying that people would put brand or company identity ahead of personal taste.  I find that absurd.




Not necessarily. Some people have suggested upthread that a game like D&D gains heavily from good adventure and setting support.

Paizo's APs are for 3.5 and Pathfinder. This is an existing market, created by Wotc's 3.xe. Paizo supports this market and this market supports Paizo.

If Paizo supported the 4e market and the 3.xe were without support by someone like Paizo, I believe that you would not see 3.x/Pathfinder products in the various outlets. You would rather see some pretty 4e adventure paths luring their fans to buy them and so to buy into 4e to play them.

All in all, you would hear more people talk about 4e and less about something like Pathfinder.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2011)

I don't see anything in that which explains why people would play a game they don't like.

Again, there was a major segment of the market turned off by 4E *before* PF was announced.  And this was well before anyone knew that WotC would add a module quality issue on top of the bigger "we don't like the game itself" problem.

If Paizo HAD followed 4E, they would be looking into other options now just like other 3PPs.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 12, 2011)

How are you so sure about people not liking 4e or even what that actually means? Games not only have their weak and strong points, they are also eligible to sorts of modifications. 

What you could rather say, that it would make more sense, is that you like more 3.xe than 4e. This I can understand more clearly. But most gamers are willing to follow or at least explore new ideas and products -especially the "quality" ones. Besides the gameplay experience among the two games is not that different.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> How are you so sure about people not liking 4e or even what that actually means? Games not only have their weak and strong points, they are also eligible to sorts of modifications.
> 
> What you could rather say, that it would make more sense, is that you like more 3.xe than 4e. This I can understand more clearly. But most gamers are willing to follow or at least explore new ideas and products -especially the "quality" ones.



Didn't I already go into this just a few posts ago?

I agree 100% that most gamers are willing to "explore" new products.  And I'm quite certain that the overwhelming majority of 3E fans "explored" 4e.  And then they made values judgments and the current marketplace is the collect sum of those assessments.



> Besides the gameplay experience among the two games is not that different.



There have been monster threads on whether or not the gameplay experiences are the same or not.  Suffice it to say that they may be to you, but they are not to a lot of people. 
But there is no value in repeating that debate here.  If you don't accept it, fine.  But it just nullifies your ability to provide meaningful on points of view that don't accept as real.  *IF* you don't accept it.

If you do accept it, then great, but then you last comment would seem rather odd.


----------



## Ampersand999 (Mar 13, 2011)

Just curious, but has the way Paizo helped 3rd parties enhance the Pathfinder portfolio help Paizo's profits? And do we know if not helping third parties for 4th edition has helped or hurt Wizard of the Coast's profits, at least with respect to Dungeons & Dragons?

I suspect Paizo knows it does, and Wizards thinks it knows its better off going alone.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> ...




Pathfinder, while catering to the 3.xe was something new to explore. At the same time it was so close to 3.x (claiming compatibility) that must have cut it for many skeptical fans that had second thoughts regarding the steps towards 4e; fans that otherwise could have given 4e a better or a second look. Pathfinder was an ideal solution for many doubtful fans.

Moreover by being actively supported by ex D&D players and alive by being available on shelf, Pathfinder gets a share of the new blood of the D&D hobby.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 13, 2011)

hutchback said:


> And if someone would just give an example of what this "valuable service" is and how they feel it would help WotC profit either directly or indirectly, this discussion would be at a close.




See upthread.

I honestly can't believe that anyone would argue that _quality_ 3PPs wouldn't benefit the brand in the long run.  It happens all the time, in other industries--a company will produce goods and/or services that are linked to a larger, stronger brand, and all boats raise.  I have no hard numbers for this, of course, but I have eyes that see companies besides Apple that sell iPod chargers, companies besides Ford that sell seat covers for Mustangs, companies besides Eureka that sell compatible vacuum cleaner bags, etc etc.

So given that, is it really so difficult to think that a terrific, _quality_ 3PP product for D&D would encourage someone to play D&D, (and buy books, subscribe to DDi, etc.)?

Maybe the problem rests in what "quality" is?


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 13, 2011)

Frylock said:


> We'll probably never know what Paizo would do if they created their own gaming system because Paizo probably never will during out lifetimes. Until they do, Paizo is still standing on the shoulders of what WotC created (bound by the license), and it's just unfair to compare their position to WotC's.




But to be fair, WotC didn't create D&D either.  Their creations are standing on the shoulders of TSR's creations, and those stand on EGGs.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 13, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> See upthread.
> 
> I honestly can't believe that anyone would argue that _quality_ 3PPs wouldn't benefit the brand in the long run.  It happens all the time, in other industries--a company will produce goods and/or services that are linked to a larger, stronger brand, and all boats raise.  I have no hard numbers for this, of course, but I have eyes that see companies besides Apple that sell iPod chargers, companies besides Ford that sell seat covers for Mustangs, companies besides Eureka that sell compatible vacuum cleaner bags, etc etc.
> 
> ...



Well, I know people who bought the 3.X PHB because of at least two 3pp:
Spycraft (first edition - before there was ever a D20 Modern) by AEG
Skull & Bones by Green Ronin

I also someone who bought the PHB because of Nyambe, but as far as I know they never actually ran it. 

So it did happen 




> But to be fair, WotC didn't create D&D either.  Their creations are standing on the shoulders of TSR's creations, and those stand on EGGs.



Who is standing on Dave Arneson (who used Chainmail for the first RPG, though it was a miniatures wargame), who is standing on EGG again (for writing Chainmail).

The Auld Grump


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Mar 13, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Who is standing on Dave Arneson (who used Chainmail for the first RPG, though it was a miniatures wargame), who is standing on EGG again (for writing Chainmail).




Yep.  You gotta feel for Arneson (may he rest in peace).  He was always perceived as the Robin to Gary's Batman, fairly or unfairly.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 13, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Well, I'm not signing it because I don't agree. I enjoy having almost no competition.



That's un-American! Next you'll be saying you don't believe in Santa Claus!



Morrus said:


> Without a demonstrable benefit to WotC it's no more than a list for gifts from Santa Claus.









In all seriousness, I would like to take this moment to thank Russ (and Eric Noah) for maintaining this site that we can all access for free. It really contributes to the betterment of our hobby and enables us to have these sorts of discussions on "neutral ground."

Thank you, gentlemen.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Pathfinder, while catering to the 3.xe was something new to explore. At the same time it was so close to 3.x (claiming compatibility) that must have cut it for many skeptical fans that had second thoughts regarding the steps towards 4e; fans that otherwise could have given 4e a better or a second look. Pathfinder was an ideal solution for many doubtful fans.
> 
> Moreover by being actively supported by ex D&D players and alive by being available on shelf, Pathfinder gets a share of the new blood of the D&D hobby.



Mostly true.

As you yourself just said though, gamers tend to be willing to explore options.
Now you are trying to contradict that point and claim that players turned their back 4E without even giving it a fair assessment.  You were right the first time and wrong now that you are contradicting yourself.

Again, a key point that you seem to be steadfastly ignoring is that the major split in the market existing BEFORE Pathfinder was announced.

But even after that, as I said, the common reply out there is "4E sucks".  What I don't hear is "I don't know if I like 4E or not, Pathfinder came out so I never looked."  There may be the rare exception that meets this criteria, but they are so rare as to be meaningless to the overall market.

People don't play 4E because they don't like.  And "don't like it" is not the same thing as "don't know if they like it or not."


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> So given that, is it really so difficult to think that a terrific, _quality_ 3PP product for D&D would encourage someone to play D&D, (and buy books, subscribe to DDi, etc.)?



Several of the posts I've read recently have made me start to change my mind on this.

I am absolutely certain that it worked great for 3E.  The OGL blossomed vast variations that were available.  People found those new options and expanded their games into more areas that appealed to more people.

But that is a feedback system with a fairly low yield.  If Joe and I each buy PHs and then Joe buys a cool new 3PP product to take the game in a new direction, I'm not going to buy a new PH because of it.  It is only when a NEW person buys that things grow.  Though, admittedly, that is only one aspect.  If Joe's new game keep me playing 3E instead of moving on to Warhammer as my primary game, then two months later I buy the latest splat book, WotC has benefited.  But still, the point is that the yield is low.

Clearly, for 3E it worked.  But would it work for 4E?  My reflex answer is: of course, why would it be any different?  But that may be wrong.  

For one thing, with the split market gives a smaller foundation.  Maybe the feedback system just doesn't have a critical mass to move forward. Of course if that alone answered the question, then it wouldn't be working for Pathfinder either, since Pathfinder is somewhere in the ballpark of the same market.

But also, we keep hearing of 3PPs doing well in PF and not in 4E.  (The exception of ENWorld clearly noted).  Maybe this yield = X% and X is not the same for 3E as it is for 4E.  Fiery Dragon was a solid name in the 3PP field during 3E.  They produced a 4E product and recently said that it did not sell well at all.  Why not?  And they seem to be extremely typical.  (Again, ENWorld seems to be the classic "exception".)

Perhaps 4E fans (as a collective market, I'm certain major exceptions exist) are not nearly as inclined to buy 4E stuff.  I know I've been in numerous discussions in which it was more than obvious to me that the typical 4E fan sits down at the table with very different expectations than myself.  Maybe that plays into it.

So a smaller base may be a problem.  But if you are using a feedback system and you turn the gain way way down.  It isn't going to perform.

Granted, this analysis is not going to be anything WotC presumed.  If anything they assumed the opposite:  A) everyone and even more will play our new game and b) 3PPs might take too much of our market share.  So I'm certain this thinking has nothing to do with how we got to the GSL.  But it seems to model our current position.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Mostly true.
> 
> As you yourself just said though, gamers tend to be willing to explore options.
> Now you are trying to contradict that point and claim that players turned their back 4E without even giving it a fair assessment.  You were right the first time and wrong now that you are contradicting yourself.
> ...



The matter of liking something or not, in entertainment products is mostly a matter of choice or preference among alternatives -granted that the market exists more or less. Liking something or not, in this case is not an absolute thing.

I am not contradicting myself. The keyword here is preference. 

Paizo, in its marketing campaign for Pathfinder, tried to emphasize certain things. The strong points were 3.5 compatibility and the effort to fix 3.5e while avoiding certain effects of 4e that they did not like -the negative effects for 4e. But the "negative" thing here is not something absolute. It is relative to something and to someone's relative tastes. What I am trying to say is that this matter is about choice. A choice about certain needs. And Pathfinder is a choice. An alternative choice to 4e.

The same thing did Wotc in their campaign regarding 4e. They presented 4e as a solution to the problems of 3.5e. Yet again, the matter for Wotc is to convince people that they can make a choice to invest into 4e and that choice would benefit them in one way or another by satisfying certain needs. 

These needs are informed. And here is where competition takes place. Competitors will try to make the most out of your specific needs that they can satisfy better than anyone else and offer the best overall package for these specific needs. In this process they will try to emphasize the importance of these needs versus others, comparable ones, as well as emphasize their performance towards satisfying this kind of needs.

This is the modern market competition environment. This is how Paizo and Wotc do business.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But even after that, as I said, the common reply out there is "4E sucks".  What I don't hear is "I don't know if I like 4E or not, Pathfinder came out so I never looked."  There may be the rare exception that meets this criteria, but they are so rare as to be meaningless to the overall market.
> 
> People don't play 4E because they don't like.  And "don't like it" is not the same thing as "don't know if they like it or not."




Agreed, although most of those people say 4e sucks without even trying it, based on preview material  

If I based my PF view on preview/playtest material I would have said OMG they overpowered everything (just like people say about 4e), like the racial hit points, extra powers for clerics, etc, etc.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> The matter of liking something or not, in entertainment products is mostly a matter of choice or preference among alternatives -granted that the market exists more or less. Liking something or not, in this case is not an absolute thing.
> 
> I am not contradicting myself. The keyword here is preference.
> 
> ...



However - there is a perception, and a true one in my opinion, that WotC was also saying that 3.X was bad. Their previews were focused on the negative, and much that they were trumpeting as negative was in fact enjoyed by many people. (Traipsing along with the fairies, anyone?)

Pathfinder instead focused on the good in their previews and advertising. The part of the game that they enjoyed, and then asked folks what they liked. WotC on the other hand kept the fact that they were even working on 4e tightly under wraps, and went so far as to deny it, even as their game designers were plugging away.

Focusing on what the game designers perceived as the negative aspects of 3.X D&D did a good deal of damage to the image of 4e, long before it was released. (When people could start hating it for itself, not just its previews.  )

Focusing on the good aspects of 3.X did a good deal towards polishing the image of Paizo in public opinion.

Publicly waffling about OGL/GSL seriously disgruntled a lot of folks who had come to appreciate the OGL, and then not even getting the GSL out in a timely fashion made them look incompetent on top of it. How many times did WotC contradict itself, publicly, before the GSL was released? And then they had to go and fix it when it became apparent that the license as written was not bringing 3pp to their door.

Paizo did not need to waffle, a lot of their license already had a working model in the form of the OGL and the D20 STL. So they were able to get their game out the door without a hitch.

The Auld Grump, who still enjoys his bad wrong fun. And roleplaying games too!


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> However - there is a perception, and a true one in my opinion, that WotC was also saying that 3.X was bad. Their previews were focused on the negative, and much that they were trumpeting as negative was in fact enjoyed by many people. (Traipsing along with the fairies, anyone?)



True. Not only do I agree here, I also mentioned this in my post above.


TheAuldGrump said:


> Pathfinder instead focused on the good in their previews and advertising. The part of the game that they enjoyed, and then asked folks what they liked.



True. But this was an answer to what Wotc did. Moreover Paizo did try to explain or just say why they did not follow 4e and contrast it with a preferable 3.xe regarding certain important points and needs of their public.



TheAuldGrump said:


> Focusing on the good aspects of 3.X did a good deal towards polishing the image of Paizo in public opinion.
> 
> Publicly waffling about OGL/GSL seriously disgruntled a lot of folks who had come to appreciate the OGL, and then not even getting the GSL out in a timely fashion made them look incompetent on top of it. How many times did WotC contradict itself, publicly, before the GSL was released? And then they had to go and fix it when it became apparent that the license as written was not bringing 3pp to their door.
> 
> Paizo did not need to waffle, a lot of their license already had a working model in the form of the OGL and the D20 STL. So they were able to get their game out the door without a hitch.




All true.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 13, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> WotC on the other hand kept the fact that they were even working on 4e tightly under wraps, and went so far as to deny it, even as their game designers were plugging away.




I have to agree.  I think that was a misstep.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> The matter of liking something or not, in entertainment products is mostly a matter of choice or preference among alternatives -granted that the market exists more or less. Liking something or not, in this case is not an absolute thing.
> 
> I am not contradicting myself. The keyword here is preference.



Well, you did contradict yourself because you first praised gamers for trying things and then you turned around and said that the presence of Pathfinder stopped people from giving 4E a fair assessment.

Your update to "preference" is accurate, but it is not the point you previously made.

But, as far as preference goes, you are still steadfastly ignoring the reality that the preference to NOT play 4E was clearly in place before PF existed as an option.

Yes, 4E and PF are competitors in a marketplace and I'm certain that some non-zero amount market claim goes both ways.  I acknowledged that from the beginning.  But if the ~50% had been WotC's and PF needed to take it away, PF would have never come into being in the first place.  The fact that WotC had already lost a big share of the market made the environment right for Paizo to step in.  Paizo did not take 50% of "their (WotC's) market".  They took part of the base that WotC lost all on their own.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 13, 2011)

Ampersand999 said:


> Just curious, but has the way Paizo helped 3rd parties enhance the Pathfinder portfolio help Paizo's profits? And do we know if not helping third parties for 4th edition has helped or hurt Wizard of the Coast's profits, at least with respect to Dungeons & Dragons?
> 
> I suspect Paizo knows it does, and Wizards thinks it knows its better off going alone.




I think the 3pp has helped Piazo more then Wizards.  Wizards was at the top of RPG pyramid for a long time and through the ogl helped create many of these smaller companies.  Paizo though by embracing the 3pp increased their market share but having all these smaller companies and their fans come to them.  That was a brilliant move that I think really helped Paizo move near the top of the market.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> ...



I see your point. Obviously Pathfinder has had the opportunity to claim existent territory and so it did. I am not ignoring this. I have pointed this out more than one time.

The deal is though that a D&D line is not only rules. There are many Pathfinder or 3.x players that play Pathfinder or 3.x due to the adventure paths that are made with these rules.

Also, who knows. If Pathfinder did not exist Wotc could have treated Essentials more radically and successfully towards their fans that thought 4e went too far in some points.

The fact though that Wotc did this effort with Essentials demonstrates that the market and competition functions in a dynamic way. Nevertheless Pathfinder has managed to become a powerhouse in expense to Wotc's dominance.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Agreed, although most of those people say 4e sucks without even trying it, based on preview material
> 
> If I based my PF view on preview/playtest material I would have said OMG they overpowered everything (just like people say about 4e), like the racial hit points, extra powers for clerics, etc, etc.




Fair enough.  There is plenty of room for debate over what qualified as "trying it".  I certainly have not played Essentials.  I've read that some of the changes made all along are specifically intended to address concerns of mine.  But that ship had sailed.  

I certainly don't think all 4E fans dropped 4E when Warhammer 3E came out.  Does that make 4E fans closed mined?  (Not that you used that term...)

Seriously, a key part of my point is that people had walked away from 4E BEFORE PF was announced.  Well, PF was announced BEFORE 4E was released.  So obviously the point is not that people had played for a year and then concluded they didn't like it based on that.

How much have you tried Pathfinder?
How much have you tried Fantasycraft?
How much have you tried the latest version of GURPS?
How much have you tried Warhammer 3E?
How many 4E fans do you expect to abandon their current games to test Goodman's new game for a solid 3 month assessment?

Part of the market reality is that you have to make people want your game based on previews.  I've seen your point before, and it seems odd to me that 4E somehow is seen as being shorted when it doesn't get what would be extremely special treatment by any other games standards.  I'd even say that 4E got way more than a "fair share" of preview consideration.  I'd expect the guys over at Crafty Games would kill just to get people to spend 25% of the time "previewing" Fantasycraft as the typical gamer spent previewing 4E.

Bottom line, 4E got more than a fair share of exposure and a lot of people didn't see what they wanted.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Also, who knows. If Pathfinder did not exist Wotc could have treated Essentials more radically and successfully towards their fans that thought 4e went too far in some points.



Sure.  But we can play "what if" all day.  To me a much better what if would have been a 4E that was intended to appeal to 3E fans from day 1.



> The fact though that Wotc did this effort with Essentials demonstrates that the market and competition functions in a dynamic way. Nevertheless Pathfinder has managed to become a powerhouse in expense to Wotc's dominance.



Well first, let's say "D&D's" dominance, not "WotC's".
And second, you are still putting the cause after the effect.  WotC's 4E approach turned off a lot of fan base in expense to D&D's dominance.  Pathfinder jumped in on that opening.

I readily agree that WotC can't undo their past mistakes and must deal with the new marketplace going forward.  Talking about *today*, yeah, Pathfinder is an important factor for today's choices.

But the point I made and you disputed was that PF did not take 50% of WotC's share because WotC had already lost that share.  That remains true.

If you want to say that WotC now has to deal with PF when they try to get that share BACK, I'll certainly agree.  But that is WotC's fault for not tending to it in the first place.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But the point I made and you disputed was that PF did not take 50% of WotC's share because WotC had already lost that share.  That remains true.
> 
> If you want to say that WotC now has to deal with PF when they try to get that share BACK, I'll certainly agree.  But that is WotC's fault for not tending to it in the first place.




The point is that Wotc could have claimed back part of that share if it were not for Pathfinder. Moreover Pathfinder not only has prevented Wotc from doing so -it also seems that it can claim part of Wotc's share.

This environment makes Pathfinder the powerhouse it is.

Sure, if it were not for Wotc doing 4e the way it did none of this could happen. Also if there were not for the OGL Pathfinder could have not existed and Wotc could have been enjoying a greater share of the market.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> The point is that Wotc could have claimed back part of that share if it were not for Pathfinder.



Our back and forth started with you disputing me.  You don't get to tell me what my point was.

It is not "their" market.  If it was "their" market they would not need to be trying to recover it.  That is what I said.  That is what you disputed.

Are you now asking to change the subject?



> Moreover Pathfinder not only has prevented Wotc from doing so -it also seems that it can claim part of Wotc's share.
> 
> This environment makes Pathfinder the powerhouse it is.
> 
> Sure, if it were not for Wotc doing 4e the way it did none of this could happen. Also if there were not for the OGL Pathfinder could have not existed and Wotc could have been enjoying a greater share of the market.



Now this, I agree with.  But it is compatible with the point I originally made and you disputed.

Now, I will point out that, again before PF was announced, I predicted that 4E would lose its fan base more quickly than other editions.  My reasoning was that the existing tabletop gamers would (as a group, individuals not withstanding) simply burn out on the approach more quickly.  And the "new", "casual" fans that it did gain  would enjoy it and then move on to the next fad.  Now, I believe my predictions have been and continue to come true.  Now, is my case on that anywhere near as strong as my case that 4E lost fans long before PF was announced?  Not at all.  This is vastly more open to debate.  I believe it.  You don't have to.  That's cool.

But we can agree that PF is now the king of "tabletop fantasy RPGs not called D&D"*  And so as 4E loses fans, PF will be first in line to potentially scoop them up.  Of course that makes sense to me.  I think PF is a better game.  So if your point is that 4E is NOW losing people to PF, I'll just agree.





* - Heh, reminds me of the commercials with things like "TVs #1 new family comedy on Thursday"


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

Though I will dispute that the OGL is to blame.
It existed, so we can't see an alternate reality.

But I still don't believe people who don't like 4E would play 4E.  Maybe without the OGL people play Warhammer.  Maybe they stop playing.  Honestly, I think the vast appeal of the 3E style was so clear that someone, maybe Paizo, maybe someone else, would have made a whole new game with that spirit and maybe THAT would be the thing.

But I see not playing anything as making more sense than people playing a game they don't like.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Our back and forth started with you disputing me.  You don't get to tell me what my point was.
> 
> It is not "their" market.  If it was "their" market they would not need to be trying to recover it.  That is what I said.  That is what you disputed.
> 
> Are you now asking to change the subject?




No. I just do not get how you say it is not "their" market. Your efforts and especially your definition in this post are... strange. You are saying here that you were correct by saying Pathfinder did not capture part of Wotc's market because if it were so Wotc would not need to make now any efforts towards gaining profits of said market.

Market presence and share is not something of an integer nature. An effort as of taking advantage of a market is an ongoing process. And, as a business entity, you can be achieving this with various degrees of success.

Markets are created and defined by the existence of ways by which they can be reached. If someones can share these ways, then they can share these markets or rather claim their market share. Obviously markets survive and grow by those that reach them so a market is something manageable up to a certain extent.

What I am saying is that if it were not for Pathfinder, Wotc could reach a bigger market and take advantage of it. It is that simple. For Wotc, it is a matter of lost potential regarding their dynamic in the market.

I still do not get what your original point is.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Maybe without the OGL people play Warhammer.  Maybe they stop playing.  Honestly, I think the vast appeal of the 3E style was so clear that someone, maybe Paizo, maybe someone else, would have made a whole new game with that spirit and maybe THAT would be the thing.



Look at Essentials for example. It is an effort of Wotc to claim these people.
If it were not that someone else, Wotc would have more possibilities on that front.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> No. I just do not get how you say it is not "their" market. Your efforts and especially your definition in this post are... strange. You are saying here that you were correct by saying Pathfinder did not capture part of Wotc's market because if it were so Wotc would not need to make now any efforts towards gaining profits of said market.
> 
> Market presence and share is not something of an integer nature. An effort as of taking advantage of a market is an ongoing process. And, as a business entity, you can be achieving this with various degrees of success.
> 
> ...




I think what BryonD's getting at is that they are not *entitled* to that market. It may be their target market, it may be a market they can do well in, but it's not theirs unless the people in the market are actively signing on to their products. That's what defines the market they can call *theirs*.

At least, that's the impression I'm getting.

And I agree that without Pathfinder, WotC may be reaching a bigger market. And I say, thank goodness for Pathfinder. I'd much rather have a competitive market driving both companies to make better products. WotC has some work to do get my dollar. I'd like to see them do it. Until they do, I'll be spending my dollars on the company that does work for it: Paizo.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I think what BryonD's getting at is that they are not *entitled* to that market. It may be their target market, it may be a market they can do well in, but it's not theirs unless the people in the market are actively signing on to their products. That's what defines the market they can call *theirs*.
> 
> At least, that's the impression I'm getting.



Yes, the context of the point I initially responded to was not that they were each fighting over a share of a neutral market, but that Paizo had taken part of "their" (WotC's) market.    And it is relevant that the market slice we are talking about once WAS WotC's.  But it stopped being theirs before PF ever came along.



> And I agree that without Pathfinder, WotC may be reaching a bigger market.



I'm certain there is so greater than zero number for which this is true.  But it isn't anywhere near the overall piece that Paizo now has.

And, just to further complicate things, keep in mind that a 50/50 market (for sake of argument) is not 50 people over here and 50 over there.  It is more likely 40 over here, 40 over there, and 20 playing both.



> And I say, thank goodness for Pathfinder. I'd much rather have a competitive market driving both companies to make better products. WotC has some work to do get my dollar. I'd like to see them do it. Until they do, I'll be spending my dollars on the company that does work for it: Paizo.



Amen to that.  But keep in mind that Paizo was much smaller not long ago.  And there are always smaller companies looking to leap when a big company stumbles.  If not for Paizo, someone else.  And Paizo can't take their position for granted any more than WotC.  (not that I think they are)


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> What I am saying is that if it were not for Pathfinder, Wotc could reach a bigger market and take advantage of it. It is that simple. For Wotc, it is a matter of lost potential regarding their dynamic in the market.



Again, you are going on a tangent here.
But I still think you are significantly overestimating the tendency of people to blindly follow WotC.

I haven't given Essentials a "fair" shake.  But I'm not going to at this point.  At its heart it is still 4E and still has the same root issues.  I'd be playing GURPS, Trailblazer, Fantasycraft, or Warhammer 2E before I'd be playing even a vastly improved version of 4E.

I'd love to give Paizo the credit for hurting 4E.  I'd love to agree with you.
I really would.

But this is a self inflicted wound.  And you can not blame the primary beneficiary of the wound for the wound happening.  If Paizo didn't exist we would not be sitting here talking about why 4E was doing so much better.  We would be sitting here arguing about why it wasn't Company X's fault 4E wasn't.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Yes, the context of the point I initially responded to was not that they were each fighting over a share of a neutral market, but that Paizo had taken part of "their" (WotC's) market.    And it is relevant that the market slice we are talking about once WAS WotC's.  But it stopped being theirs before PF ever came along.



Well, this is not what you were saying. It seems you have come up to agree with this by our conversation so far and that's good for me.
But, to be fair, the initial context were about the effects and results of something like OGL to Wotc *by Wotc's own perspective*.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Well, this is not what you were saying. It seems you have come up to agree with this by our conversation so far and that's good for me.
> But, to be fair, the initial context were about the effects and results of something like OGL to Wotc *by Wotc's own perspective*.




Go back and look at what I replied to and what I said.  
Even if you want to claim "by WotC's perspective", all that means is I'm saying their perspective is wrong.  Not that I buy that anyone has expressed WotC's POV anyway.

But it is exactly what I said.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Go back and look at what I replied to and what I said.
> Even if you want to claim "by WotC's perspective", all that means is I'm saying their perspective is wrong.  Not that I buy that anyone has expressed WotC's POV anyway.
> 
> But it is exactly what I said.




http://www.enworld.org/forum/5492657-post279.html
I do not get why you are so stubborn about it.

EDIT: What does you mean that their perspective is wrong anyway? That PF has not been a problem or a mishap for Wotc's own goals and aims? That Wotc is just paranoid?

And the matter of the argument is not whether it could be another company if not Paizo as you try to spin it. The matter is that with the OGL around it has been proven to be relatively easy for something like Pathfinder to happen to someone like Wotc.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/5492657-post279.html
> I do not get why you are so stubborn about it.



I stand completely by that post.



> EDIT: What does you mean that their perspective is wrong anyway? That PF has not been a problem or a mishap for Wotc's own goals and aims? That Wotc is just paranoid?



You said the whole thing was from WotC's perspective.  I'm just replying to your tangent and pointing out that is doesn't really change anything.  (and I said "even if")



> And the matter of the argument is not whether it could be another company if not Paizo as you try to spin it. The matter is that with the OGL around it has been proven to be relatively easy for something like Pathfinder to happen to someone like Wotc.



Then why did you reply to me in the first place?  You replied to ME.

I disputed the claim that it was WotC's market share that was taken.
I STILL dispute that claim for the same reasons I did in the first place.  That claim is still wrong.


You certainly seem to be strongly claiming that in an alternate reality without the OGL that people would have gone to 4E.  I see no evidence to support that claim.  I see evidence to refute that claim.  People left 4E before the OGL alternative you keep pointing at existed.  The insistence that they would have abandoned their preferences if not for the OGL seems more than a stretch of wishful thinking.

We already have in reality a period in time that contradicts you.  And how you think in your fictional reality non-4E fans would adopt when in the actual reality 4E is struggling to hold fans is hard to imagine.  

Again, I am convinced that if the WotC police shut down Paizo and burned and formatted every copy and Pathfinder everywhere tomorrow, the benefit to 4E would be marginal.  I still would not play 4E if PF was denied to me.  And I don't think people who like 4E less than me would either.

Without PF people COULD find themselves choosing 4E.
But they also COULD find themselves choosing GURPS.
And they could find themselves leaving RPGs for more time playing guitar, or texas hold-em, or painting.
In a universe of options you are stubbornly and baselessly insisting that they would choose the one thing they have clearly expressed they don't want to do.


WotC lost that market share before PF existed.
It was NOT "their" market.  It still isn't.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 13, 2011)

True for me at the least - the odds of my switching to 4e is lower than my chance of winning the lottery. The odds have not changed since I took a look at the brand new and shiny books at the store. Not my game at all, at all.

If not Pathfinder, I may have picked True20 as my poison of choice, or just continued running Spycraft 2.0 as my generic game system.

The Auld Grump


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I stand completely by that post...
> I disputed the claim that it was WotC's market share that was taken.
> I STILL dispute that claim for the same reasons I did in the first place.  That claim is still wrong.



So your point is: 
-that Wotc is not entitled to the Pathfinder market even if it is their target market, as billd91 puts it, (and you agree with him)
-the Pathfinder's market is not Wotc's market
So, what is it?

You are not making it clear.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

Morrus said "allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share".

Key words "our market share".  "The market" <> "a given companies market share"

If you use the actual context, my point is completely clear.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Morrus said "allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share".
> 
> Key words "our market share".  "The market" <> "a given companies market share"
> 
> If you use the actual context, my point is completely clear.



Ok, so it is what billd is saying.
But why insisting on that point about people that would not follow 4e Pathfinder or not. This point supports the other argument.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Ok, so it is what billd is saying.
> But why insisting on that point about people that would not follow 4e Pathfinder or not. This point supports the other argument.




Because it supports the point I'm making.
And it is logical.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Because it supports the point I'm making.
> And it is logical.



Nope it is contradictory and creates confusion. This point supports the premise that Wotc and Pathfinder have different target markets. Which means that they do not compete for market share.
What you are saying now is that what you wanted to say all along is that Wotc and Paizo are competitors and both can claim a market share from a market that does not just belong to Wotc anymore.
These are two different arguments. If you were the Wotc CEO and your share holders asked you about the situation and any strategic parameters of it weighting on decisions to make you would have to be less confusing about this matter.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 14, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> <snip post>



Azgulor, you make an interesting point here, but I think any response will get lost in this thread, so I've started a new thread on the 4e board.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I don't see anything in that which explains why people would play a game they don't like.




Well, for my friends that prefer to play 3E over 4E, it is because they enjoy my DMing style and the campaigns I present. They enjoy the Friday nights we spend together.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Clearly, for 3E it worked.  But would it work for 4E?  My reflex answer is: of course, why would it be any different?  But that may be wrong.




OW! My jaw just hit the table. *j/k, BD*



BryonD said:


> But also, we keep hearing of 3PPs doing well in PF and not in 4E.  (The exception of ENWorld clearly noted).  Maybe this yield = X% and X is not the same for 3E as it is for 4E.  Fiery Dragon was a solid name in the 3PP field during 3E.  They produced a 4E product and recently said that it did not sell well at all.  Why not?  And they seem to be extremely typical.  (Again, ENWorld seems to be the classic "exception".)
> 
> Perhaps 4E fans (as a collective market, I'm certain major exceptions exist) are not nearly as inclined to buy 4E stuff.  I know I've been in numerous discussions in which it was more than obvious to me that the typical 4E fan sits down at the table with very different expectations than myself.  Maybe that plays into it.




For me the expectation have certainly changed. I don't buy many rulebooks anymore (actually AV1 was the last I bought). I really enjoy the use of DDi and WotC has effectively locked out competition from that resource. 3PP have more difficulty getting my money for rules that cannot integrate into the tool I mainly use to play 4E.

Where they can (and do) find my money is adventures. Even adventures not written for my system of choice.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 14, 2011)

xechnao said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/5492657-post279.htmlAnd the matter of the argument is not whether it could be another company if not Paizo as you try to spin it. The matter is that with the OGL around it has been proven to be relatively easy for something like Pathfinder to happen to someone like Wotc.




A few points:

(1) The OGL is designed to funnel support from a wide diversity of producers to the game system at the top of the food chain. As a business strategy, this is only effective as long as you continue producing that game system... which WotC didn't do.

(2) Which is not to say that WotC couldn't update and improve that game system. 3.5 is the proof of that: They updated from 3.0 and yet the OGL-created network of producers continued to support them. Their first mistake with 4th Edition was making what was essentially a completely new fantasy roleplaying game, which meant that they were simultaneously (a) abandoning the advantages of the network of support they had built for themselves and (b) leaving a void at the top of that network's food chain that could be filled.

(3) Despite the radical change in the game system, they probably would have still made it work if they had continued supporting the OGL with 4th Edition. The network of support would have likely made the transition with them.

(4) They _might_ have even made it work with something like the GSL (OGL-like support that had a built-in cyanide pill where they could cancel the license at any time), which would have allowed them a more graceful exit from the OGL-era. Notably, Piazo _wanted_ to support 4th Edition. It was only when WotC completely bungled the licensing process that they started looking for a different solution. This was WotC's second huge mistake.

This is not a case of the OGL being a flawed business strategy. This is a case of WotC's new business strategy being inferior to their old business strategy combined with a complete botching of the transition between the two.

tl;dr: WotC could have gotten away with abandoning the OGL or they could have gotten away with publishing an entirely new fantasy RPG. They couldn't get away with doing both simultaneously.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 14, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> tl;dr: WotC could have gotten away with abandoning the OGL or they could have gotten away with publishing an entirely new fantasy RPG. They couldn't get away with doing both simultaneously.



3.5e is OGL. For 3.5e they could not abandon the OGL .


Beginning of the End said:


> This is not a case of the OGL being a flawed business strategy. This is a  case of WotC's new business strategy being inferior to their old  business strategy combined with a complete botching of the transition  between the two.



Maybe yes, maybe not. The deal is that if 4e were OGL competitors could mix and match 3.5e and 4e and the new edition could be in even tighter competition than it is now.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 14, 2011)

xechnao said:


> 3.5e is OGL. For 3.5e they could not abandon the OGL.




What does that have to do with anything that I posted? I didn't discuss the "just continue publishing 3.5" option at all in my post. 



> The deal is that if 4e were OGL competitors could mix and match 3.5e and 4e and the new edition could be in even tighter competition than it is now.




You appear to be suggesting that if 4E as it exists today had been released under the OGL that WotC would find itself in meaningful competition with some sort of bastardized 3E/4E hybrid. And that this hybrid would somehow be even more successful than Pathfinder is in the real world.

On what are you basing this conclusion?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Nope it is contradictory and creates confusion.



Obviously it is confusing you.



> This point supports the premise that Wotc and Pathfinder have different target markets. Which means that they do not compete for market share.



No, it does not.



> What you are saying now is that what you wanted to say all along is that Wotc and Paizo are competitors and both can claim a market share from a market that does not just belong to Wotc anymore.



What I am saying now, what I want to say, and what I've been saying all along are all the same thing.




> These are two different arguments. If you were the Wotc CEO and your share holders asked you about the situation and any strategic parameters of it weighting on decisions to make you would have to be less confusing about this matter.



You are inserting false contexts into my comments that are not there.  You are confusing yourself.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Well, for my friends that prefer to play 3E over 4E, it is because they enjoy my DMing style and the campaigns I present. They enjoy the Friday nights we spend together.



Completely beside the point.  It has been acknowledged on numerous occasions that people will get together and play whatever the group wants.  But we are comparing system preference.


Do you pick completely random systems every time you get together?  If system was truly completely meaningless, you would play GURPS, then Warhammer, then 4E, then FATAL, then 3E, etc...  You would get the added bonus of variety.  

The entirely reasonable reality of getting together with friends and being agreeable does not change the point that actual system preference plays into it.

And in the end that all comes out in the wash.
But that doesn't change the fact that removing PF from reality won't cause people who don't like 4E to become fans.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> For me the expectation have certainly changed. I don't buy many rulebooks anymore (actually AV1 was the last I bought). I really enjoy the use of DDi and WotC has effectively locked out competition from that resource. 3PP have more difficulty getting my money for rules that cannot integrate into the tool I mainly use to play 4E.



Sure, that makes sense.
But I don't think it is the only reason.

Look at Goodman, their #1 thing is adventures.  And unless I misunderstand, they still will be.  But even they seem to be having a much harder time.  So the issue is not limited to DDI compatible elements.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Obviously it is confusing you.
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> ...




Your post here it helps explain nothing. My impression is that you are trying to defend yourself just for the sake of defending it. Sorry but this post is totally empty for the sake of the argument.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Your post here it helps explain nothing. My impression is that you are trying to defend yourself just for the sake of defending it. Sorry but this post is totally empty for the sake of the argument.




No.  It is totally empty because explaining it five times already has proven the futility.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

Real simple:

#1) WotC made a game a lot of people did not like.
#2) Those people walked away from WotC.
#3) Those people will not go back to WotC as long as WotC is making a game they don't like.

That is all I've ever said.

It isn't complex to see how Paizo picking up those people has nothing to do with the above.
It isn't complex to see how neither Paizo's continued existence nor disappearance tomorrow would have anything to do with any of the above.



Now, if we dare get a wee bit complex: OF COURSE, there is some back and forth and some finite change.  But that is just down in the small fractions.  The big picture market positions are not changing based on that.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> What does that have to do with anything that I posted? I didn't discuss the "just continue publishing 3.5" option at all in my post.





You said:
"WotC could have gotten away with abandoning the OGL or they could have  gotten away with publishing an entirely new fantasy RPG. They couldn't  get away with doing both simultaneously."

You make a distinction here. The distinction is:
Either publish something new or abandon the OGL but not both at the same time. 
Logically, this distinction means that if they abandon the OGL they should not publish something new, aka go on with what they were having going on, which is nothing else but 3.5e.




Beginning of the End said:


> You appear to be suggesting that if 4E as it exists today had been released under the OGL that WotC would find itself in meaningful competition with some sort of bastardized 3E/4E hybrid. And that this hybrid would somehow be even more successful than Pathfinder is in the real world.
> 
> On what are you basing this conclusion?




Imagine if you could market your product as a game that has the best elements of 4e while retaining the more attractive ones of 3.5e and succeed in that. Very clearly, in this case 4e is at a disadvantage.

Right now some people prefer 4e over 3.5e because of how differently it manages to do certain things. Alas, this was 4e launch marketing campaign. Imagine if 4e could not claim this as a product.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> ...Paizo picking up those people has nothing to do with the above.




It has a lot to do exactly for your point #3:







BryonD said:


> #3) Those people will not go back to WotC as long as WotC is making a game they don't like.





If it were not for Pathfinder, Wotc would stand a higher chance or, if you prefer, an easier time on this front. The front to win people (back). I tried to explain you why this happens to be so. If it is still unclear, I will try once again.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 15, 2011)

Okay you three - you have been going back and forth through most of this thread, over, and over, and over.

I agree with one of you.
I disagree with another.
A third is more or less backing up one of the other two.

But at this point I wish that _all_ of you would just drop it.
Which I agree with and which I disagree with no longer matters, you have _all_ said what you had to say. Several times over.

So _please_, would all of you drop it and turn to some other point, please? The other side is not going to get what you said, either because they just aren't wrapping their heads around it, are getting frustrated because they have said the same thing several times over, or are just being deliberately thick headed.

I feel like I am listening to an argument between fans of the Red Sox, the Yankees, and the Mets.

The Auld Grump, when obviously the Washington Senators are the best team....


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I disagree with another.



Yeah, so what exactly do you disagree with? That, for Wotc, following the OGL and having something like Pathfinder happen is not a matter of concern?

Sure, some people like you may think so. Wotc seems to think differently. And I think you will have to try really hard to be convincing on how the ability of a company to support an edition you want to abandon does not hamper your ability to get as many of your fans as possible to follow you to your next edition.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 15, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Their first mistake with 4th Edition was making what was essentially a completely new fantasy roleplaying game, which meant that they were simultaneously (a) abandoning the advantages of the network of support they had built for themselves and (b) leaving a void at the top of that network's food chain that could be filled.



You describe this as a mistake. But what I find interesting is the possibility that WotC had _already_ formed the view that they were under threat from something like Pathfinder so long as they continued to publish rules that (more-or-less) fitted onto the OGL-governed SRD.

One reason to suppose that they had this belief is that it would then make their decision to publish a game which was reasonably discontinuous from the d20 SRD, and which was not itself licensed under the OGL, a rational one from their perspective.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 15, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Yeah, so what exactly do you disagree with? That, for Wotc, following the OGL and having something like Pathfinder happen is not a matter of concern?
> 
> Sure, some people like you may think so. Wotc seems to think differently. And I think you will have to try really hard to be convincing on how the ability of a company to support an edition you want to abandon does not hamper your ability to get as many of your fans as possible to follow you to your next edition.



I am done with your conversation. I told you that I was tired of your never ending, ever repeating argument. Do not try to drag me in. Welcome to the Ignore list.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 15, 2011)

xechnao said:


> You make a distinction here. The distinction is:




No offense, but it's clear at this point that English is not your first language and you're operating across a language barrier. And there comes a point at which trying to communicate across that language barrier is a lost cause. This is that point.



> Logically, this distinction means that if they abandon the OGL they should not publish something new, aka go on with what they were having going on, which is nothing else but 3.5e.




For example, my original post explicitly contradicts your "logical" conclusion here. Which means that it isn't logical.

I have pointed this out to you before. Yet you persist in claiming that you can read my mind and that I actually meant something completely contrary to what I wrote.

There's not much more to discuss at that point.



> Imagine if you could market your product as a game that has the best elements of 4e while retaining the more attractive ones of 3.5e and succeed in that.




You can do that right now. Since game mechanics can't be copyrighted, nothing's stopping you.

But you will very quickly discover that figuring what constitutes the "best elements of 4e" and the "more attractive ones of 3.5e" is essentially impossible because it represents a personal value judgment. And many of the things which people who play 4e consider "the best elements of 4e" are fundamentally incompatible with the "more attractive ones of 3.5e" that made people stick with that system.



pemerton said:


> You describe this as a mistake. But what I find interesting is the possibility that WotC had _already_  formed the view that they were under threat from something like  Pathfinder so long as they continued to publish rules that  (more-or-less) fitted onto the OGL-governed SRD.
> 
> One reason to suppose that they had this belief is that it would then  make their decision to publish a game which was reasonably discontinuous  from the d20 SRD, and which was not itself licensed under the OGL, a  rational one from their perspective.




In terms of the specific context of "try to prevent something like _Pathfinder_" I think WotC's decision to simultaneously drop AND publish a radically new fantasy RPG was pretty much the _worst_ way to do it. WotC obviously believed otherwise, but that doesn't mean they weren't dead wrong.

A few points:

(1) Paizo was not the first publisher to repackage the core rules and publish them. At least two other publishers did that from 2000-2008 and there were probably others that I'm unaware of. And there were others who tried to publish various flavors of "D&D... but slightly improved!". None of them were successful. None of them significantly impacted WotC's market. None of them enjoyed the success which Pathfinder has enjoyed.

I feel fairly confident in saying that no such project _would_ succeed in yanking away substantial portions of WotC's marketshare, as long as WotC remained at the top of the pyramid. It was only by vacating that position that WotC made Pathfinder possible.

(2) The transition from 3.0 to 3.5 makes it fairly apparent that even _minor_ shifts in mechanics were widely perceived as rendering older material out of date. A hypothetical-4E that maintained 1974-2008 gameplay could still have changed enough to render 3.5 material into dustbin material.

(3) Could a hypothetical-4E that was closer to 3.5 have allowed people to use the OGL to "clone" the system? Maybe. But newsflash: People have been publishing off-brand D&D supplements since 1975. There are people publishing D&D clones _right now_ that don't use the OGL.

So, to sum up:

If WotC had done real-4E and released it under an OGL, I don't think Pathfinder happens. I think Paizo and the rest of the major players in the industry (the people who could actually make something like Pathfinder happen) would simply move on to 4th Edition. WotC would probably still have lost 3.5 players like me, but the level of product support for people like us would be more on the level of the OSR retro-clones than Pathfinder.

If WotC had done a hypothetical-4E and NOT released it under the OGL, someone might have tried for something like Pathfinder. But I think WotC would have been far more successful at converting their player base, who (as with the transition from 3.0 to 3.5) would view the older material as being incompatible enough to not interest them.

Alternatively, I suspect that WotC could have released a hypothetical-4E (with 1974-2008 gameplay) and coupled it to a poison pill GSL that allowed them to pull the license at some future date. Between a more successful conversion of the player base and a likelihood of luring major players onboard, WotC might have given themselves a graceful exit plan from the OGL-era.

Ironically, buying patterns in the DDI era make it clear that WotC could have _easily_ gotten away with hypothetical-4E and no third-party licensing at all. Semi-compatible clone support would wither on the vine even more painfully in the wake of people preferring DDI-supported options than the fully-compatible GSL material available today. But here I can say that nobody could have reliably predicted this effect of DDI.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 15, 2011)

BOTE said:
			
		

> If WotC had done real-4E and released it under an OGL, I don't think Pathfinder happens. I think Paizo and the rest of the major players in the industry (the people who could actually make something like Pathfinder happen) would simply move on to 4th Edition. WotC would probably still have lost 3.5 players like me, but the level of product support for people like us would be more on the level of the OSR retro-clones than Pathfinder.




What major players?  Other than Paizo and Goodman games, there were no major players doing 3.5 D&D supplements anymore.  Green Ronin did a couple of modules, but their main focus was pretty obviously M&M.  AEG was out.  Mongoose had been out for while.  S&S Press had given up years earlier.  

What major players were left?


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> No offense, but it's clear at this point that English is not your first language and you're operating across a language barrier. And there comes a point at which trying to communicate across that language barrier is a lost cause. This is that point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Blah blah blah. Nothing to see here. Nada.

Explain what you meant in plain english please and show how my conclusion is not logical.

It is to easy to blame a language barrier and then not try to explain in plain english where the misunderstanding lies.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I am done with your conversation. I told you that I was tired of your never ending, ever repeating argument. Do not try to drag me in. Welcome to the Ignore list.
> 
> The Auld Grump




So you attack me instead of attacking the argument. If you cant face the argument it is stupid to provoke by posting a disagreement and when asked to put it on solid ground accuse people of being thick headed and that you should ignore them.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> You can do that right now. Since game mechanics can't be copyrighted, nothing's stopping you.



There is. Fear of getting sued. Even if mechanics cannot be copyrighted as you say.
Also, trying to be "copyright infringement" proof in such an endeavor could be a nightmare. And still, Wotc could still sue you.
In other words, what was the point of the OGL first place again?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> What major players?  Other than Paizo and Goodman games, there were no major players doing 3.5 D&D supplements anymore.  Green Ronin did a couple of modules, but their main focus was pretty obviously M&M.  AEG was out.  Mongoose had been out for while.  S&S Press had given up years earlier.
> 
> What major players were left?



Pretty much the case, coming to think of it. 

Mongoose was releasing a new line of hard covers, the Renegade books, but I am pretty sure that it was under the OGL, not the D20 STL. And they were mostly repackagings, not new material. The Classic Play line was still going though, so I think that one counts. And there was still some movement in the Slayer's Guide, but most of the movement was satirical and under the OGL, not D20. And a few oddballs in the Quintessential line. So, Mongoose _was_ still in when the D20 license ended, but had changed focus - it had become a sideline.

Privateer had some things in the works, but they were already years behind schedule, putting their focus on WARMACHINE. The D20 license going away pretty much just put the last few nails in the coffin's lid. 

Adamant... maybe not a major player, but still coming out with material.

The Dragonlance material was still going fairly strong - and I think tossing aside that license was a bad move, feeding the ill will that was already building towards WotC, even before the announcement of 4e.

Paizo and Goodman still had their primary focus on the OGL/D20 STL when the change came.

I don't know about Goodman, since DCC was transferred over to the GSL, but I think that WotC made a misstep losing Paizo, turning what could have been a strong supporter into a serious rival. And a competitor who's reputation they had helped build by entrusting them with Dragon and Dungeon magazines - a trust that Paizo had shown worthy of, releasing some of the best Dungeon adventures ever written.

The Auld Grump


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> ....



Here, I will try to make it plain and clear for you where the problem lies in what you are saying.
Basically, what you say is that Wotc should make a 3.5e highly compatible game without being OGL. 
This, simply put, makes no sense.
Why? Simply because the OGL is a base of compatibility. Since 3.5e is OGL, you could use the OGL to make compatible products with that new hypothtical highly compatible game that would not be OGL. Thus your point is moot.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> And in the end that all comes out in the wash.
> But that doesn't change the fact that removing PF from reality won't cause people who don't like 4E to become fans.




I still believe that some people who were dissatisfied with 3.5, but did not like the changes 4E made to solve the issues they were having, but did like the changes Paizo made in Pathfinder, would have made the change to 4E as the choice of a lesser of two evils. I'm not going to claim any numbers here, just an opinion that this would have happened. Since I can't see into alternate realities I cannot prove my theory.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Sure, that makes sense.
> But I don't think it is the only reason.
> 
> Look at Goodman, their #1 thing is adventures.  And unless I misunderstand, they still will be.  But even they seem to be having a much harder time.  So the issue is not limited to DDI compatible elements.




Definitely not the only reason.

Goodman, IMO, suffers from niche products. They are best known for their Dungeon Crawl Classics line (and now RPG). I like dungeon crawls and the products I've seen from them are enjoyable, but their reputation pigeon-holes them in to a single style of adventure. Paizo, on the other hand, has a line of individual adventures of various types and Adventure Paths. They have a reputation for good style, good writing, and great variety. There are adventures paths for swashbuckling, dungeon crawling, sandboxing, etc.

It's good to have focus and build a reputation for being the best in your focus, but when interests in the market wax and wane you have to ride the rollercoaster.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> It isn't complex to see how Paizo picking up those people has nothing to do with the above.
> It isn't complex to see how neither Paizo's continued existence nor disappearance tomorrow would have anything to do with any of the above.
> 
> Now, if we dare get a wee bit complex: OF COURSE, there is some back and forth and some finite change.  But that is just down in the small fractions.  The big picture market positions are not changing based on that.




I understand you now. "Nothing" in your former comment isn't meant as an absolute. Your real opinion lies in the latter comment. I can agree that at the level of market conditions that you have a point and _may_ be correct.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 15, 2011)

*Ladies and gentlemen,

I've just had to lay about with some infractions and thread-bans because people couldn't comport themselves like mature adults.  We expect you to treat other posters with respect at all times - including when they disagree with you or annoy you.  

Next person in this thread who can't keep their tempers and manners in check can expect a vacation from the boards.  Don't expect any further warnings.*


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I understand you now. "Nothing" in your former comment isn't meant as an absolute. Your real opinion lies in the latter comment. I can agree that at the level of market conditions that you have a point and _may_ be correct.




Certainly.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> What major players?



I think the major players left was a much longer list the day before the Gencon announcement of 4E than it was on the day 4E was released.  And that makes sense.

Certainly things got a serious shake up when 3.5 happened.  And it was never really the same after that.  But I'd add to the list Necromancer and Fiery Dragon, and Fantasy Flight was one foot out the door, but not yet gone when the announcement came along.


And just to spin off of that.  I do think that 3E was largely "done" and it was time to move on.  I've said this before, but when 4E was announced the main immediate reaction (sight unseen) was the typical "those money-grubbers want me to buy yet another edition".  I was in the minority going "hell yeah, bring it on."  It was only later that I switched opinions.  (not much later)

But the point is, 3E was a very seriously plowed field.  3PPs WERE moving on because it was time.  That doesn't mean that a new OPEN game that also recaptured to spirit of 3E couldn't have started the whole process over again.  Not that I'm saying that would be easy to do.  But it *could* have happened.  But once WotC went a different direction both in terms of Open Gaming and in terms of game design philopsophy, the entire environment for 3PPS was turned over.

3E was done.  4E COULD still have been a new beginning.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 15, 2011)

The way I see it, this entire conversation is predicated on the idea that Paizo is now a major competitor with WOTC.  That may well be true.  I have zero idea.  Based on store sales, there's probably some truth.  But, I think people vastly underestimate how much DDI makes for WOTC.

It's entirely possible for WOTC to have a smaller market in terms of numbers of people buying their books yet still be making the same or more money than they were before.  That constant revenue stream has got to play a huge role in any decision making process.  

I don't think they could have done an OGL 4e and then slapped everything behind the paywall.  Things like the Hypertext SRD show how long an OGL 4e would have remained viable as a pay online resource.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, I think people vastly underestimate how much DDI makes for WOTC.
> 
> It's entirely possible for WOTC to have a smaller market in terms of numbers of people buying their books yet still be making the same or more money than they were before.  That constant revenue stream has got to play a huge role in any decision making process.



I absolutely agree that (A) they are making a lot of money through this route and (B) the constant (predictable) revenue stream is a huge value.  

But I think that misses some very important points.

First, I don't for a second accept the idea that WotC is content with a smaller fan base.  Even if we assume for the sake of argument that they are making more net profit than ever before (and who knows, maybe they are) all that really means is they could be making vastly MORE if they had not lost fan base.  And, with something like DDI the cost to service 5 fans isn't really any more than the cost to service 1, so more fans would largely go directly to the profit line.

But, also the split market takes away from the overall value of the D&D brand.

Lastly, this is a landmark event in the history of D&D.  That itself is important.

WotC and Paizo are absolutely in competition.  Where exactly the lines are isn't absolutely clear, but we have a generally idea.  And how hugely excellent an idea the DDI is has zero bearing on the significance of market share.  If anything, the profit leverage of the DDI magnifies the lost potential profits.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I don't think they could have done an OGL 4e and then slapped everything behind the paywall.  Things like the Hypertext SRD show how long an OGL 4e would have remained viable as a pay online resource.



People will tell you that the mechanical end of this could be released "open" just as easily for 4E now as for anything else.  It is the copyright parts that can be protected.  So really, it shoudln't make much difference.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The way I see it, this entire conversation is predicated on the idea that Paizo is now a major competitor with WOTC. That may well be true. I have zero idea. Based on store sales, there's probably some truth. But, I think people vastly underestimate how much DDI makes for WOTC.
> 
> It's entirely possible for WOTC to have a smaller market in terms of numbers of people buying their books yet still be making the same or more money than they were before. That constant revenue stream has got to play a huge role in any decision making process.
> 
> I don't think they could have done an OGL 4e and then slapped everything behind the paywall. Things like the Hypertext SRD show how long an OGL 4e would have remained viable as a pay online resource.





But in the end isn't all of this just as true concerning Paizo and their multiple subscription lines?  I mean let's not forget both companies have subscription revenue and we don't know how much either model generates.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The way I see it, this entire conversation is predicated on the idea that Paizo is now a major competitor with WOTC.



This now seems to be the received wisdom on these boards. I don't have any evidence independent of what I read here, so am just going with the flow.



BryonD said:


> I do think that 3E was largely "done" and it was time to move on.



My feeling is that the apparent success of PF suggests this may not be so - unless you are counting PF as a "moving on" from 3E - which may be so, but I don't think it's moved very far.

What the success of PF/Paizo _appears_ to show is that - contra to what Ryan Dancey said back in the day - there _is_ a viable RPG business model which puts adventures, rather than character build and encounter/world design supplements, at its centre.

I don't know whether or not WotC anticipated this, but suspect that they did not, and thus did not anticipate that Paizo could use its experience at adventure design in combination with its subscription list to keep 3E alive in the way that it has done.

What remains, for me, a great puzzle is WotC's inability to produce strong adventures. I don't want to say it's a _crippling_ weakness, but it certainly seems to be hurting them.



Beginning of the End said:


> Paizo was not the first publisher to repackage the core rules and publish them. At least two other publishers did that from 2000-2008 and there were probably others that I'm unaware of. And there were others who tried to publish various flavors of "D&D... but slightly improved!". None of them were successful. None of them significantly impacted WotC's market. None of them enjoyed the success which Pathfinder has enjoyed.
> 
> I feel fairly confident in saying that no such project _would_ succeed in yanking away substantial portions of WotC's marketshare, as long as WotC remained at the top of the pyramid. It was only by vacating that position that WotC made Pathfinder possible.



I think what is distinctive about Paizo is precisely it's ability to use adventures (and subscription to them) to leverage a system, rather than vice versa.

The best sense I can make of WotC's decisions and subsequent situation is that (i) they were concerned about a growing challenge from OGL publishing of their rules system, (ii) they did not consider it a viable option to continue to dominate d20/OGL+SRD gaming by publishing adventures and campaign supplements, and therefore (iii) decided to change to a system that would not be so easily replicable via the OGL+SRD, and that would not itself be released under the OGL, and also (iv) appeared to believe that there was a strong market - whether among existing or potential players - for a markedly non-simulationist although in other respects fairly mainstream fantasy RPG.

They have achieved (iii). It seems that (iv) turned out to be false, although my own view is that WotC has not done itself any favours by consistetnly failing to present guidelines, GM advice and adventures that make the most of 4e's strengths. Whether or not they had any inkling that (ii) might be true for them but false for Paizo, it turns out that it was radically false for Paizo.



BryonD said:


> People will tell you that the mechanical end of this could be released "open" just as easily for 4E now as for anything else.  It is the copyright parts that can be protected.  So really, it shoudln't make much difference.



As I've posted recently on a couple of other threads, I don't think it's quite that straightforward. First, it's hard to produce RPG material that doesn't combine some fiction with the rules text - and if the game is to be a D&D claim then WotC may well have a copyright claim over the fiction. Second, in order to present the rules text in such a way that its status and utility as a clone is evident, it will be necessary to replicate to some extent at least the structure, headings, etc of WotC's rulebooks - at which point, again, there may be reproduction of not only of rules but of other elements of WotC's works in respect of which it enjoys copyright. (I feel that this only gets trickier when the publisher of the clone want simultaneously to say "Hey, I'm selling D&D over here" without actually making wrongful use of WotC's trademarks.)

Now while I am an academic lawyer who teaches some private law, I am not an IP lawyer, and so the above is presented in a fairly general and tentative fashion. Frylock is a poster on these boards who is a practising IP lawyer, and he has expressed the view that a 3pp character builder is doable. On the other hand, Clark Peterson of Necromancer games - also an experienced commercial lawyer - has expressed the view that OSRIC is "infringing and unethical", and I assume that his reasoning is similar to what I have sketched in the previous paragraph. (I understand that Kenzer has expressed similar views about OSRIC, although I've not actually read these.) OSRIC is of course not the only way to clone, and so what Frylock and Clark have to say isn't necessarily at odds. The point I'm making is that succeeding at the task is probably non-trivial from a legal point of view.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My feeling is that the apparent success of PF suggests this may not be so - unless you are counting PF as a "moving on" from 3E - which may be so, but I don't think it's moved very far.



Clearly the implication to support you is strongly there.

IMO it was a case of "you don't know what you got til its gone."
3E was done.  And really, from a serious market analysis, I don't think anyone disputes that.  As was correctly pointed out, the 3PPs were starting to seek greener pastures and by all rumor (at least) WotC's late 3E stuff was well off the pace of earlier titles.  (I could argue quality, but I don't think that was sole, or even primary, cause)

But, for a significant chunk of the marketplace, simply a brief period with the specter of having nothing* that really catered to their desires was enough to cause them to be thrilled just to have 3.5 back.

Obviously it is more complex than that because there ARE some changes.  And probably much more significantly, WotC's 3.5 was founded on the game mechanics themselves.  Pathfinder's foundation has far more to with setting and APs than WotC ever did.  Not that there are not a lot of people who love the PF updates and ignore Golarion and the APs.  But Paizo's bread and butter is heavily on the story side and WotC's was on the mechanics side.

So it really is both.  It was done and Raise Dead was cast.


* - "nothing" meaning in terms of "fix" of the month of something new.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> /snip
> 
> WotC and Paizo are absolutely in competition.  Where exactly the lines are isn't absolutely clear, but we have a generally idea.  And how hugely excellent an idea the DDI is has zero bearing on the significance of market share.  If anything, the profit leverage of the DDI magnifies the lost potential profits.




See, that's my sticking point.  Well, obviously they are in competition, that's 100% factually accurate, but, how true is it?  After all, every 3pp was in competition with WOTC and each other, but, "in competition" only means they are selling to the same demographic.  People are using very, very skimpy evidence to claim that there's no more 800 pound gorilla, but, now there's two similar sized gorillas.  

Even the idea of the "split" in the fanbase.  How many people are buying Pathfinder books?  How many are buying WOTC books?  We DON'T know.  Way, way upthread, someone mentioned how he sold way more PF versions of his book than 4e versions.  But, his "way more" was something to the tune of 500 copies.  

500 copies?  At the end of the day, who cares?  That's not even going to cover lunch money for a couple of days for a company the size of WOTC.  There was much noise made about how the top 100 at Drive Thru RPG was mostly PF books.  That's fine.  But, what kind of numbers are we talking about?  How many copies do I have to sell to break into the top 100 at Drive Thru RPG?  1000?  1500?  Maybe?

So, even though the top 100 sellers at Drive Thru RPG are mostly PF books, if you actually look at the numbers being sold, it tells a pretty different story.  

When WOTC sold out its first two print runs of the PHB, I was emphatically told, over and over again, that this meant nothing.  This could not be used as any evidence of the strength of the 4e line.  

Yet, the same people who told me that are now telling me that PF is equal to WOTC because of it's sales numbers.  Numbers that are about as accurate as the average Magic Eight Ball.

It could very well be true.  But, my point is, none of us know.  We really, really don't.  We're not even making educated guesses here.  All you have to do is look at the user name and you can guess what side of the fence they're going to fall down on.  This has nothing to do with facts even in the Fox News level of fact.

Me, I'm going to climb back up on the fence.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> WotC's 3.5 was founded on the game mechanics themselves.  Pathfinder's foundation has far more to with setting and APs than WotC ever did..



Yes, I mentioned this in my post. I also suggested that it shows Dancey was mistaken in his views about what makes for a viable RPG business model. Do you think that's right? Or is there a difference between Paizo and WotC (eg number of employees) that I'm missing.

Also - do _you_ have any opinion or insight as to WotC's problem with adventures? I mean, Mike Mearls can write good stuff - look at Penumbra's In the Belly of the Beast! So why is WotC's stuff so dismal?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2011)

This is somewhat late to the party, but ...



Aberzanzorax said:


> A more appropriate word for "cooler" in the business world is "goodwill" which is actually, on occasion, accounted for as an asset by market analysts and actuaries.




That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Goodwill,"  in an accounting sense, is not "a financial guess at how much your customers like you."  While that is somewhat the root of the word, it is no longer applicable as such in a modern context.

"Goodwill" is defined as the difference between the purchase price of a company and the asset valuation (including intangible assets like trademarks, brand names, etc.).  That's it. [For a private firm, anyway, goodwill is undefined until a sale is made; for public firms, the stock price plays a role, and so it's more readily available.]

It is then, per current GAAP, adjusted on an as-needed basis, rather than amortized on a set schedule - which is where the accountants, actuaries, and analysts come in.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 16, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Very interesting!



> The term *goodwill* was originally used in accounting to reflect the fact that an ongoing business had some "prudent value" beyond its assets, such as the reputation the firm enjoyed with its clients. Likewise, a buyer may agree to "overpay" because he sees potential synergy with his own business. The accounting sense of goodwill followed as a possible explanation of why a firm sells for more than the value of its current assets.




I had no idea I was using the archaic version of the term. Thankye!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Even the idea of the "split" in the fanbase.  How many people are buying Pathfinder books?  How many are buying WOTC books?  We DON'T know.



So therefore you are going to assume the claims to be false?

Knock yourself out.  I don't care what you are comfortable believing.  But if you feel the need to spin both the quality and quantity of data to fit your desired conclusions, that is informative.  There have been detailed conversations before. You have been in them before.  And again you are trying to push the "pretend these questions have not already been answered and start over" button.  

We'll be over here if you ever decide to join us.



> This has nothing to do with facts even in the Fox News level of fact.



There is all kinds of information buried in this comment.  (Not the least of which is that you feel free to start playing with the "no politics" rule.)


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Yes, I mentioned this in my post. I also suggested that it shows Dancey was mistaken in his views about what makes for a viable RPG business model. Do you think that's right? Or is there a difference between Paizo and WotC (eg number of employees) that I'm missing.



I think you are not accounting for the differences in game fundamental design.  Yes, Paizo's business model is Adventure based, but it is founded on the appeal of the 3E design.  I think Dancey's claim presumed that there would be competition for that part of the market.  When 4E was designed with a goal of appealing to the larger masses of people who were not already tabletop gamers, the whole dynamic was thrown off.

I'm obviously just guessing here, but...  I think if you could go back in time to when Dancey made that statement and describe the events of recent years he would both stand by his statement and readily agree that Paizo had a great plan.  They may appear contradictory on the surface, but the details are everything.




> Also - do _you_ have any opinion or insight as to WotC's problem with adventures? I mean, Mike Mearls can write good stuff - look at Penumbra's In the Belly of the Beast! So why is WotC's stuff so dismal?



Keep in mind that I have never bought a single 4E module.  

I have for a long time now believed that Mearls is the best game designer currently in the industry.  When he worked for Malhavok I joked that Cook was "management" and Mearls was "talent".  (And I think Cook is very talented).  The only other person I personally rank in his class is Steve Kenson.

So we agree.  Mearls is really good.

4E was not designed for ENWorld or RPGnet fans.  They wanted us to like it, I'm not saying otherwise.  But they wanted us to come along for the ride in a game that was designed for a completely new and much larger audience.  

For me, personally, an adventure designed for a game that isn't designed for gamers in the first place is not going to be as good.  But that is just me.  Clearly people who love 4E also are disappointed in 4e modules. At least in large enough numbers to be significant.  [I can't prove this either Hussar, so go ahead and know that I'm wrong.  I hereby declare you the victor]

So we can conclude there really is something to 4e modules that is lacking.

Perhaps, just as the game was not designed with ENWorlders in mind as a primary target.  The modules are not either.  So when we don't like them, it isn't very meaningful.

Obviously we have been around and around about what 4E does and does not do well.  And also clearly you have a great deal of history in gaming theorycraft.  I think we would both agree that you apply that knowledge and experience when you run 4E.  (As does any decent GM running any system)

Now, my position would be that you are compensating for issues inherent to the 4E system.  I don't doubt you can make a great gaming experience through doing that.  But you as a knowledgeable and experienced "gamer" being part of the process is important.  4E design, and modules, does not assume you or anyone like you will be there.  To the contrary, their business goal specifically presumes that for the vast majority of tables, no one like you will be there because they have drawn hordes (no WOW pun intended) of new fans to table top for the first time.  So not only is the talent you bring absent, it is specifically designed out because they don't want to burden potential new gleemaxDDI subscribers away.

So, when we gamers get together and conclude that 4E modules are lacking.  Perhaps we are simply wrong.  Maybe we are wine snobs saying that Budweiser isn't good wine.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I also suggested that it shows Dancey was mistaken in his views about what makes for a viable RPG business model. Do you think that's right? Or is there a difference between Paizo and WotC (eg number of employees) that I'm missing.




I think the main point is that Paizo's business model being good does not necessitate that WotC's model is bad. Each company has different goals. The rightness or wrongness of the decisions each company has made depend on whether they met their goals or not. That's the piece of the puzzle we're all missing. We can all give our opinions on whether each company has made decisions that our right or wrong for us, but without knowing the goals of each we can only speculate over whether the decision made were right or wrong at the time they were made and whether those decisions panned out in the end.



pemerton said:


> Also - do _you_ have any opinion or insight as to WotC's problem with adventures? I mean, Mike Mearls can write good stuff - look at Penumbra's In the Belly of the Beast! So why is WotC's stuff so dismal?






BryonD said:


> So we can conclude there really is something to 4e modules that is lacking.
> 
> Perhaps, just as the game was not designed with ENWorlders in mind as a primary target.  The modules are not either.  So when we don't like them, it isn't very meaningful.




I think it's diverted focus. The goals of WotC, as BD points out, are rules-driven. This puts a large focus on developing new and (hopefully) interesting rules and leaves little time for good adventure development.

I felt the same during the 3.x days. Paizo was my source of good adventures back then too. While the 3E WotC adventures were certainly better than the 4E offerings, they were still poor in comparison to Paizo's work.

I feel like this was what WotC was looking for when they started the OGL. I believe they envisioned a gaming landscape where they churned out the ruleset while others provided the settings and adventures. I think one of the factors (although probably not the biggest) involved in the withdrawal from the OGL was that they never initially pictured other companies creating competing rulesets.


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Mar 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> So, when we gamers get together and conclude that 4E modules are lacking.  Perhaps we are simply wrong.  Maybe we are wine snobs saying that Budweiser isn't good wine.




I think this is a significant factor.

I think Paizo is leading the industry in adventures. But I don't think that means that adventures are leading the industry.

Rich, deep, flavorful game content may not be what WOTC sells because rich, deep, flavorful game content may not sell well.

Edit to add: "Leading the Industry" in sales, to be clear.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think one of the factors (although probably not the biggest) involved in the withdrawal from the OGL was that they never initially pictured other companies creating competing rulesets.




People keep saying this and I keep wondering, who specifically do you mean by "they?" 

Rayn Dancey is quoted as saying, "_I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners._" 

That sure sounds to me like he knew pretty well what he was doing when he did it. 

Now, initially, the d20 license was designed to mandate the purchase of a PHB. Dancey is on record hoping someone would make a "Wild West" game using d20 that would require others to purchase the PHB.

But the OGL is a different beast and it was always meant, by Dancey, to allow a back and forth sort of design process with each company feeding off of the work of others.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 16, 2011)

ThatGuyThere said:


> Rich, deep, flavorful game content may not be what WOTC sells because rich, deep, flavorful game content may not sell well.




I don't know about that. I think, over time, good flavor is the only thing that sells consistently. 

New rules are fun, but long term gamers come to realize that the rules only take you so far.


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Mar 16, 2011)

Wicht said:


> ...over time... ...long term gamers...




We are in complete agreement.

But one of the goals of D&D 4E was expansion. "Experienced" gamers were no longer the target(s) (IMHO, etc, etc; we were certainly invited along for the ride, but we weren't the targets).

And, if the options are, sell to "Experienced gamers" _or_ sell to "new players", it's possible WOTC deliberately chose to leave the experienced gamers cold, to increase the game's attraction to new players.

There's an argument that an internet forum about gaming is self-selecting towards experienced gamers. We don't know - we can't know - how D&D 4E does with inexperienced gamers. Maybe they adore 4E adventures, and would flounder helplessly in Paizo's Adventure Paths.

I know when I was less experienced "adventure" meant "dungeon", and adding a wider scale to the game took time. In my teen years, I'm not sure that D&D 4E, and the modules produced for it, wouldn't have been exactly what I was looking for.

And if there are more teens buying D&D "stuff" than experienced gamers, that might explain the situation.

In fact, I think I've just found my new Pet Theory.

Edited to add - I actually game (Pathfinder) regularly with two under-20-year-olds who told me they were "into gaming" with their friends and "play online" (text games) "all the time". In Pathfinder, one of them eagerly role-plays and explores complex character scenarios, while having no idea how to read the character sheet; the other repeatedly says she loves game and loves coming, but seems very intimidated by both the rules-set and the actual "improv" nature of roleplaying.

I'm seriously wondering how they'd do with 4th Edition.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Knock yourself out.  I don't care what you are comfortable believing.  But if you feel the need to spin both the quality and quantity of data to fit your desired conclusions, that is informative.






> There is all kinds of information buried in this comment.  (Not the least of which is that you feel free to start playing with the "no politics" rule.)





*Please realize that the moderating staff will laugh at you if you try to claim you didn't know you shouldn't make these arguments personal.  

EVERYONE: Address the logic of the post, not the personality of the poster.  It isn't new, and it isn't rocket science. *


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2011)

Wicht said:


> People keep saying this and I keep wondering, who specifically do you mean by "they?"
> 
> Rayn Dancey is quoted as saying, "_I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners._"
> 
> ...



You are right.
Back when the whole thing was still be publicly planned and described, the obvious analogies to open source code were frequent.  And the "you borrow my tools and return them sharper" cliche was common.

They intended *the rules themselves* to be a major part of the open environment.  If they just wanted adventures they would have released a license for adventures.  They didn't release adventures, they released the system.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think it's diverted focus. The goals of WotC, as BD points out, are rules-driven. This puts a large focus on developing new and (hopefully) interesting rules and leaves little time for good adventure development.
> 
> I felt the same during the 3.x days. Paizo was my source of good adventures back then too. While the 3E WotC adventures were certainly better than the 4E offerings, they were still poor in comparison to Paizo's work.



Eh, I don't think focusing on rules preempts producing good adventures.  They are not in conflict.  To the contrary, if you are having real trouble with story, your mechanics will suffer for it through lack of context.

And even if that was an issue, why is it that even by your own account WotC's 3E module stuff was better than the 4E stuff?


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Mar 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Eh, I don't think focusing on rules preempts producing good adventures.




Depends very much on the WOTC office environment.

Do they sit around and roleplay, during "playtests", or just run through the encounters, checking the mechanics?

If it's the latter, that could easily lend itself to, well, the type of adventures they produce. Particularly if they think, "Well, the other stuff, we can just write up; you don't have to 'playtest' the introduction to the adventure, after all".

Note that I'm not saying it is this way, or _entirely_ this way. But more in this direction than the other might ... ... be represented in the final product.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2011)

I still disagree because these guys are still gamers as well.

Even if they spend 8 to 5 as pure mechanic wonks, they should be playing.
If the guys writing 4E don't play 4E, then there's your problem.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 16, 2011)

Wicht said:


> People keep saying this and I keep wondering, who specifically do you mean by "they?"
> 
> Rayn Dancey is quoted as saying, "_I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners._"
> 
> ...




They = WotC. Ryan Dancey had to sell the idea to management at some point. It seems to me that he had a different view of where things should lead. He did a good job selling it, but it seems like management didn't buy the results.



BryonD said:


> They intended *the rules themselves* to be a major part of the open environment.  If they just wanted adventures they would have released a license for adventures.  They didn't release adventures, they released the system.




Good point.



BryonD said:


> Eh, I don't think focusing on rules preempts producing good adventures.  They are not in conflict.  To the contrary, if you are having real trouble with story, your mechanics will suffer for it through lack of context.




They don't have to preempt, it depends on your resources and how you allocate them. It seems that WotC believes they will get a better ROI on rules than adventures. So less time is spent refining them.



BryonD said:


> And even if that was an issue, why is it that even by your own account WotC's 3E module stuff was better than the 4E stuff?




I still called those offerings poor. But I geuss the difference would be other factors like available talent, different priorities, etc.



BryonD said:


> I still disagree because these guys are still gamers as well.
> 
> Even if they spend 8 to 5 as pure mechanic wonks, they should be playing.
> If the guys writing 4E don't play 4E, then there's your problem.




They have documented accounts of playing, so we reasonably know that they do. I think the 4E modules have some potential. If more resources had been devoted to these modules they could be better. I don't consider them fatally flawed.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> They = WotC. Ryan Dancey had to sell the idea to management at some point. It seems to me that he had a different view of where things should lead. He did a good job selling it, but it seems like management didn't buy the results.




Who were the management at the time who initially approved it but today don't like the results? Do you know or are they, in your mind, a faceless, unchanging corporate entity?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I still called those offerings poor. But I geuss the difference would be other factors like available talent, different priorities, etc.



Understood and not challenged.  But you still felt motivated to call out a difference.  




> They have documented accounts of playing, so we reasonably know that they do. I think the 4E modules have some potential. If more resources had been devoted to these modules they could be better. I don't consider them fatally flawed.



I'm certain that is true.  I didn't mean to actually imply they don't, but I see how what I wrote could be read that way.

I was just replying to the creative environment suggested by the prior post.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 16, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Who were the management at the time who initially approved it but today don't like the results?




I was trying to convey my gut feelings about the situation, not lay out specifics. Because...



Wicht said:


> Do you know or are they, in your mind, a faceless, unchanging corporate entity?




Not at all on either count. I don't know who they were, who they are now; not on a casual basis or a personal basis. I know it's a group of ever changing people faced with real-life decisions. I was merely sharing my speculation, as that is all most of us have.

I think the dislike of the OGL showed up far earlier than 4E though. IMO, Not enough beyond core was added to the OGL to show that management at the time was buying the results.


----------



## Roland55 (Mar 16, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Well, I know people who bought the 3.X PHB because of at least two 3pp:
> Spycraft (first edition - before there was ever a D20 Modern) by AEG
> Skull & Bones by Green Ronin
> 
> ...




So true.  Even when you're sure you've done something quite original ... there's usually at least one person you're beholden to.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 16, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Well, I know people who bought the 3.X PHB because of at least two 3pp:
> Spycraft (first edition - before there was ever a D20 Modern) by AEG
> Skull & Bones by Green Ronin
> 
> ...




I personally know at least 8 people who bought PHBs and other WotC rulebooks because they were playing in campaigns that wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for 3PPs. (The DM would have been running a different game system if 3PP product didn't lead directly to the creation of those campaigns.)

Some of those people later went on to become 3E DMs themselves, although I can't testify on whether or not they converted new players in turn.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Not at all on either count. I don't know who they were, who they are now; not on a casual basis or a personal basis.




Peter Adkinson was CEO and therefore the person probably most responsible for giving it the go ahead. Considering he was/is a pretty savy gamer, I imagine he understood the full implications. He sold to Hasbro the following year. I believe he is currently involved with Gen Con and Bella Sara cards.

Ryan Dancey was Brand Manager of DnD. He was they guy in charge of the game and he was the one pushing the OGL. He seems to have been fairly sure of what he was doing, and looking back, does not seem to regret it. 

The OGL came out in 2000. In 2001 the company changed hands. The people who created the OGL are not the same team as the ones there now. 

In a way, the OGL can be considered the way in which the owners/stewards of Dungeons and Dragons in 2000 insured any future owners/stewards would be forced to deal with the game in the proper manner or else face losing the game.


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Mar 16, 2011)

Wicht said:


> The OGL came out in 2000. In 2001 the company changed hands. The people who created the OGL are not the same team as the ones there now.




Huh. There's an interesting tidbit, that I'd either forgotten, or dismissed.

So those in charge of the money [edit - for the life of 3.0 / 3.5 and the dawn of 4th edition] were not the original OGL supporters.

When was Unearthed Arcana (Wizard's last OGL foray, correct?) released? Anyone?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 16, 2011)

ThatGuyThere said:


> Huh. There's an interesting tidbit, that I'd either forgotten, or dismissed.
> 
> So those in charge of the money [edit - for the life of 3.0 / 3.5 and the dawn of 4th edition] were not the original OGL supporters.
> 
> When was Unearthed Arcana (Wizard's last OGL foray, correct?) released? Anyone?





2004.  Here you go - Dungeons & Dragons Books from Wizards of the Coast :: Pen & Paper RPG Database


----------



## pemerton (Mar 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> While the 3E WotC adventures were certainly better than the 4E offerings.



I don't agree with this. Like the 4e adventures (at least the handful that I know) the 3E adventures have some good, even powerful, ideas, but extremely banal and overly combat-centric execution (Bastion of Broken Souls is in my view the poster child for this).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> So therefore you are going to assume the claims to be false?/snip




Apologies for the Fox news joke.  I wasn't trying to make a statement but making a seriously failed attempt at a joke.  My bad.

But, I have to ask, what data?  What data are you basing ANY of these assumptions and claims on?  I'm not assuming ANY claims to be true because none of the claims is backed up by anything even remotely in the same zip code as an actual fact.

It could be that Paizo is going great guns and is going to overtake top spot and stay there for the next ten years.

It could be that this is all Internet tempest in a tea cup and people are making mountains out of molehills.  

My point is, no one actually has anything like facts to back up their gut reactions.  This thread simply shows this.  We have BOTE here talking about how he personally knows 8 people who were brought into 3e by 3pp. 

It's interesting.  It's a talking point, but, at the end of the day, it's who cares?  How many people came into the hobby without any 3pp influence?  How many of those gamers are still gamers?  How much bias is there in BOTE's example?  Those 8 gamers could have been people he personally recruited for a 3pp game like M&M, and would quite possibly have been just as likely to become gamers if they were introduced through 3.5 D&D, or Villains and Vigilantes.

BryonD, you talk about the split and make statements like this:



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> 4E was not designed for ENWorld or RPGnet fans. They wanted us to like it, I'm not saying otherwise. But they wanted us to come along for the ride in a game that was designed for a completely new and much larger audience.




Really?  Based on what?  How is this not designed for ENWorld fans?  Morrus has come out here and flat out stated how successful his 4e adventure path has been, to the point where they've expanded into two more 4e AP's.  Wouldn't this point to 4e being designed for EnWorld fans?  After all, if EnWorld hated 4e, wouldn't the AP's not be terribly succeful?

The game is not designed for YOU.  Totally agree there.  But you are not D&D fandom.  It might suck to have a game that's not specifically catering to your tastes, but, you're conflating your tastes with some sort of broader appeal.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But you are not D&D fandom.  It might suck to have a game that's not specifically catering to your tastes, but, you're conflating your tastes with some sort of broader appeal.




I absolutely reject that and will go so far as to request that you consider retracting it.

I have stated before that if D&D 5e truly was designed to my personal specifications it would flop majestically.  

I do not remotely think that my personal tastes have any bearing whatsoever on popularity.  I think anyone who pays attention to what I have said over and over again would know that.

My opinions about 4E's issues with broader appeal are based on just that, my assessment of broader appeal, even when that appeal conflicts directly with what I would prefer.

As to whether or not there is a split.  Whatever.  I'm not motivated to debate that topic.  The comment you quoted isn't even based on the split, it is based on the direct comments of multiple designers and marketers of 4E.  I cite it as informative as to WHY the split exists.  

You specifically Hussar told me that the editions wars would be over by the end of Summer 2008 because everyone would wrap up their on-going campaigns and move on to 4E.  You were way wrong.  You are more wrong now when you try to insist that not only is reasonable doubt out of the question but that somehow the existence of a split is de facto false until proven by the very word of God.  When I read insider after insider talk about it and their point of conversations have long sense moved past even questioning it and into simply taking it as understood and debating just where they lines may be drawn.  So, to have Hussar come along and demand I document the fact is just not going to lose me any sleep.  It is there.  You don't believe it.  Life is good.  Gaming is good.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> After all, if EnWorld hated 4e, wouldn't the AP's not be terribly succeful?



And just for the record, I'll point out that this is example N+1 of Hussar radically twisting my words into something that in no way reflects what I said.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this. Like the 4e adventures (at least the handful that I know) the 3E adventures have some good, even powerful, ideas, but extremely banal and overly combat-centric execution (Bastion of Broken Souls is in my view the poster child for this).




I'm not going to argue opinion.

But I don't see how cherry-picking examples really adds to the conversation.  As I said, I'm really not qualified to comment on 4E adventures.  But it seems that it is hard to find 4E fans (around here at least) who don't complain loudly about the quality of modules.  The 3E adventures ran hot and cold and were commented on accordingly.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 17, 2011)

If you cannot speak to the value or quality of 4e adventures, you  shouldn't be speaking about it. You're clearly trying to bait people  into your flame traps.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 17, 2011)

Matt James said:


> If you cannot speak to the value or quality of 4e adventures, you  shouldn't be speaking about it. You're clearly trying to bait people  into your flame traps.




Really now? That seems a tad harsh. :/

 I haven't read any 4e adventures either, but I do know if there is one thing that most people who like 4e complain about it is WotC's modules. 

BryonD, in this case, was merely echoing Vyvyan's sentiment in order to buttress his own point. I would find it a strange rule of debate/conversation to not be allowed to use the points the other guy has already conceded.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 17, 2011)

Most people make up statistics as well. 

Damn, I just got sucked back into this ridiculous thread


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 17, 2011)

Matt James said:


> If you cannot speak to the value or quality of 4e adventures, you  shouldn't be speaking about it.





Start a poll about it in the 4E forum for a better idea of how widespread it might be.  I'd suggest you make the voters names visible as some EN World polls seem to attract one or two ballot stuffers.  I often see this complaint and often see those who make the complaint discuss their conversions of PF APs.  Maybe they are just vocal minorities.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 17, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Start a poll about it in the 4E forum for a better idea of how widespread it might be.  I'd suggest you make the voters names visible as some EN World polls seem to attract one or two ballot stuffers.  I often see this complaint and often see those who make the complaint discuss their conversions of PF APs.  Maybe they are just vocal minorities.




How does this relate to the comment "_but I do know if there is one thing that most people who like 4e complain about it is WotC's modules._" (you said so, so it must be true)--wait, it's the adventures now? I thought it was the GSL? No, wait. I thought it was people wanting WotC to do more for them? This thread has turned into a complete _Charlie Foxtrot_. Detractors of the edition are grasping at straws. This entire thread has been used as a tool to rail against an edition, and anyone that plays/supports it. I'm surprised to see so many non-4e players invested and concerned. It's mind boggling. Why can't people play in their own sandboxes without dropping turds in neighboring ones? If the holy grail of RPGs is elsewhere, what other possible purpose could one have other than to flame and denigrate what others might enjoy?

Edit: I'm going back to reading non-confrontation threads. Drop me an e-mail if you want.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 17, 2011)

Matt James said:


> If you cannot speak to the value or quality of 4e adventures, you  shouldn't be speaking about it. You're clearly trying to bait people  into your flame traps.



Sorry to have contributed to luring you back into the thread.

I'm a big fan of 4e. Most of my recent posting history on this forum is defending 4e against various detractors (at the moment, in another degenerating Industry thread - Roads to Rome Redux).

But I don't like the WotC 4e modules, because in my view they radically fail to leverage all the appealing features of 4e, by presenting combat-centric railroads rather than thematically engaging, player driven scenarios.

The contrast, for me, is with the example modules at the end of the original HeroWars Narrator's Book. I'm converting one of those modules into 4e at the moment, and it's a remarkably smooth conversion - both 4e monster design and 4e skill challenge design make it easy to capture the flavour of the HeroWars contests and the various attributes that they bring into play.

WotC has the money and talent to - in principle, at least - present that sort of adventure with a level of professionalism and polish that Issaries just can't muster. But for some reason that I really can't fathom, they don't.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 17, 2011)

Wow, this thread was a pretty crazy ride. I really miss EN World and posting on here. I think it's too little too late for WotC to save any face with the GSL. That ship has sailed and the line between Pathfinder and 4e is etched in stone.

I'm not going to guess on the sales of Pathfinder vs. 4e, because that's all it would be is a guess. I do believe that the marketing decisions that WotC has been making with Red Box, a reboot of 4e with Essentials, the D&D boardgames, D&D Heroscape, etc. is indicative of their position in the RPG market.

WotC has more products that try to either bring in new Customers or market to old players through nostalgia then I've ever seen. All of this points to a company who isn't happy with where they are. Whether they are still the market leader or not, they are clearly trying to grow their base through avenues they didn't explore in the 3e era and that speaks volumes IMHO.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 17, 2011)

Matt James said:


> How does this relate to the comment "_but I do know if there is one thing that most people who like 4e complain about it is WotC's modules._" (you said so, so it must be true)--wait, it's the adventures now? I thought it was the GSL? No, wait. I thought it was people wanting WotC to do more for them? This thread has turned into a complete _Charlie Foxtrot_. Detractors of the edition are grasping at straws. This entire thread has been used as a tool to rail against an edition, and anyone that plays/supports it. I'm surprised to see so many non-4e players invested and concerned. It's mind boggling. Why can't people play in their own sandboxes without dropping turds in neighboring ones? If the holy grail of RPGs is elsewhere, what other possible purpose could one have other than to flame and denigrate what others might enjoy?
> 
> Edit: I'm going back to reading non-confrontation threads. Drop me an e-mail if you want.




That's a pretty freaky lens through which you're reading this thread...

If you don't think there's a common perception (at least among the forum-posting 4e fanbase) that WotC's adventures are strongly conisdered sub-par, you've been living under a rock.  Not too long ago, one of the WotC staffers (I don't recall who it was at the moment) started a thread on "how can WotC make its adventures better".  Was that person edition-bashing and grasping at straws?

The GSL did have a large and negative impact on 3PPs.  Remember Necromancer Games?  Remember how pro-4e they were?  Remember how they ultimately pulled waaaaay back because of how they felt the GSL could/would put them in an untenable position?  Yeah, good ole Clark, that anti-4e bigot holding up his GSL straw-man argument....

This thread started because an open letter from a 3PP was sent to WotC.  You don't have to like the letter.  You don't have to agree with the letter.  But dismissing it out of hand doesn't invalidate why that letter was written.

Dismissing everyone whose opinion has differed from yours and labeling them 4e detractors is your perogative.  If you really think everything is wine and roses in WotC-land, 4e is the RPG cat's meow, D&D is bigger than it's ever been, and that 3PP should either get on board the WotC train or quit their "complaining", more power to you.

I do, however, think Reality disagrees with you.  I suspect it sits somewhere between your stance and "WotC & 4e sucks".  If WotC views the world through the same lens as you, I predict Reality's stance will slide farther and farther away from your position.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2011)

Several of you people are getting reported for sundry variations on the theme of, "Can't be bothered treat other gamers like they're real people who matter more than my own highly vaunted opinions."

This thread is not providing intellectual value worth our babysitting you and it.  THUNK.


----------

