At Least 4 Months For Conversion Documents

Those waiting for official conversion documents from earlier editions of D&D to 5th edition are going to have to wait a bit longer. WotC's Mike Mearls says that "the person who needs to do the final approvals on them is serving on a jury that will take another 4 or so months. Sorry!" So it looks like we're talking July/August at the earliest. Thanks to Adrian for the scoop.

 

[Wicht]

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

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

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

 

[Wicht]

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

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

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

 

[bmfrosty]

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

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

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

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

WotC is not your bitch.

Mearls is not your bitch.

Perkins is not your bitch.
[/sblock]

 

[Trickster Spirit]

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

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

So what to conclude?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wicht]

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

Then they should be upfront about their priorities.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Then they should be upfront about their priorities.

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

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

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

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

 

[Wicht]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Trickster Spirit]

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

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

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

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

 

[Wicht]

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

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

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

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

You are conflating.

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

 

[Kramodlog]

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

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

WotC is not your bitch.

Mearls is not your bitch.

Perkins is not your bitch.
[/sblock]

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

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