Mearls' Latest Thought on the Industry

[philreed]

It may be that WOTC does not see any benefit in allowing the material to be released by a PDF that may be seen by only a few hundred people.

So WotC locking up material is okay? You're saying that their locking up material in no way harms innovation?

And I've certainly had more than a few hundred customers. A lot more.

 

[eyebeams]

Whoa.

You're saying capitalism fosters hard work and innovation?

That's crazy talk.

Indeed it is crazy talk, and I say that without irony. Many, many .pdf releases are trash that ought not to grace even a free site that's been repackaged via DTP software. As someone who tries to aim for something a bit better, it's extremely disappointing to have to peddle my wares in this situation. The rise of RPGNow Edge and DTRPG (to segment things in various ways) has helped here, but there's still a ways to go.

Part of the problem is that unless a purchaser frequents communities like this one, quality has almost nothing to do with the chance of that person buying your work. Instead, it's the appeal of the niche itself and to a lesser extent, graphic design. Look at LPJDesign's crash and burn over basic quality issues. Big mistakes, but real *pretty* ones.

As long as Wizards continues to exploit third parties as a form of market research for its own releases, there will never be a consistent, bigger-than .pdf community willing to support PHB-style, mainline D20. Why the hell would I want to release a HC with genuinely good ideas that supports D&D when WotC will simply release an official counterpart next year?

The irony is that things like Iron Heroes are the result of this, because they are obviously designed to be *in*compatible enough to stand as their own brands rather than part of an effort to disseminate a common approach.

 

[BSF]

Well the numbers I see are PDFs trending up all the time, and print sales trending down.

When you combine that with the fact that distributors have a nasty of habit of, oh, NOT PAYING for books that sold (this happened to RPGObjects and several other companies recently in the Osseum meltdown) that definitely puts PDFs in the "non-screw" category of small companies' bottom line.

I worked with the largest local bookstore for 4 years. What you are referring to was happening with non-RPG Books in the early 90's. The stories I got to hear were pretty horrifying. Stuff like large chains buying product on terms. Buying in quantity so they could have publishers drop ship to stores. Not paying to terms. Letting the account languish long enough that the publisher would run into cash flow problems, then settling the account for pennies on the dollar.

You would think the publishers would stop selling to those folks right? Well, if they were a small local bookstore, they would. But when you are talking nationwide chain stores, it is harder for the publisher to cut them off.

Distribution channels have the same effect. I never heard of Ingram Micro doing something like that, but if they did, it would have been pretty much the same as Osseum. How would publishers find a way to bypass Osseum? It would require a lot of business coordination and in the end it would likely mean that Osseum didn't carry those publishers. So the publishers would have to create a different distribution channel to replace the existing channel. Or they would have to start devoting more time to direct sales between the publisher and the store. That equates to more staff. Both to handle shipping as well as handling credit. There isn't an easy solution to creating change in distribution channels. Yes, PDF publishing may be the path of least resistance, but there is a lot of perceived value to avoiding those headaches.

 

[Henry]

Whoa...I think you misunderstood, Henry. Mike says that PDFs harm the OGC movement by locking up new ideas.

Unfortunately, I think I'm understanding perfectly.

First, the idea of an OGC clearinghouse, in itself, not itself an abhorrent idea, would indeed serve to seriously alter the way that many current 3rd-party publishers do their business. WotC, who wants to see OGC content fly to drive sales of their non-OGC product, wouldn't mind it either.

Another thought, PDF's harm the OGC movement. HOWEVER, many OGC companies sell PDF's; it's how they get their product available in some markets where distribution is lackluster. So far, both suggestions would benefit WotC far more than the RPG market as a whole, coincidentally or not.

However, at worst, all the PDF publishing will do is make the best surviving publishers stronger as competition falls out. There will ALWAYS be a presence of "knock-off products" in any venue, be it electronics, games, appliances, what have you. When the PDF venue matures, (certainly a ways off), the strongest will flourish, and there will always be a revolving blizzard of stand-ins who hope to cash in on the fringe of the market. One day it's "Red Tojanida Games" selling 10 dwarven sub-races; six months from now, it's "Screeching Harpy Games" selling their own magic system variant, and then they'll die out, too. But neither one will touch the sales of the stronger survivors, be they Green Ronin, Blue Devil, or Mongoose.

 

[JoeGKushner]

And WotC books do not do this exact same thing?

Example: I would like to write 101 Planar Touchstones. I've asked WotC a few times in the past (as most recently as last week) for permission. Not once have my e-mailed requests to do this been answered.

If the rules were OGC I could proceed without special permission and players using the planar touchstone rules would have 101 new planar touchstones to use in their games.

Why is it that WotC locking up rules helps the industry but the existence of PDFs, most of which are declared as 100% OGC, hurts the industry?

That's one I would be interested in. Planar Touchstones are something I thought was great in concept but needs more examples.

and magical locations.

And X, Y, and Z.

How about Planar Bindings? something that mimicks the Touchstone idea but uses ritual and binding to do such?

 

[BryonD]

It might be hard for Mearls to do an Open Source wiki himself right now, because he is very busy, plus he is now an official WOTC guy.

So people are not sharing because they are to busy selling stuff and, in your assessment, Mike would would lead the way here, but he has a very good excuse for why he can't. The excuse being that he is to busy making stuff to sell. OK

Anyway, on first blush I think this conclusion is way off. For one thing, suggesting that getting people away from a profit motive as a solution to the Open Gaming community "problem". Is about as founded in reality as suggesting people flapping their arms to fly as a solution to traffic problems.

For another thing, I don't see any evidence that removing the profit motive from the mix would even begin to make people share content. People keep re-invinting different versions of the same thing as is. Why spend time and money doing a different version of something already available? Particularly if your goal is to produce a product to sale? The answer is every designer, from the home-brew guy with a web site to the major publishers, all seem convinced that their idea for monster X or Feat Y is the ideal and every other version to go before it missed the mark. Solve that problem and we will see a lot more sharing.

I'll wait here.

 

[philreed]

That's one I would be interested in. Planar Touchstones are something I thought was great in concept but needs more examples.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought so. And it's the type of thing that is perfectly suited to PDFs. A huge hardcover of nothing but planar touchstones would be too much. And since the distribution channel no longer like softcovers . . .

and magical locations.

And X, Y, and Z.

Exactly my point. How am I, as a PDF publisher with almost always 100% OGC designations, harming innovation? I would think that those who lock up new rules, no matter how they're published, would harm innovation far more than I do.

How about Planar Bindings? something that mimicks the Touchstone idea but uses ritual and binding to do such?

I've wondered if it would be worth creating my own rules for the same concept.

 

[BryonD]

And WotC books do not do this exact same thing?

Example: I would like to write 101 Planar Touchstones. I've asked WotC a few times in the past (as most recently as last week) for permission. Not once have my e-mailed requests to do this been answered.

If the rules were OGC I could proceed without special permission and players using the planar touchstone rules would have 101 new planar touchstones to use in their games.

Why is it that WotC locking up rules helps the industry but the existence of PDFs, most of which are declared as 100% OGC, hurts the industry?

Ok, this is a bit of a tangent, but it is a kind of thing that has been on my mind for a while.

Has WotC really locked up these rules? CAN WotC lock up these rules if they want to?

Sure, you can not make "touchstones". But what stops you from developing "Power Locations" that are SRD-derived mechanical clones of touchstones?

I understand and respect your personal strong reluctance to tread on any other publisher's ground. I'm not going there. But you called it locked. Is it REALLY locked and you CAN'T go there. Is it it wide open with a little black line drawn around it and a sign vainly marking it as "Called For"?

 

[philreed]

I understand and respect your personal strong reluctance to tread on any other publisher's ground. I'm not going there. But you called it locked. Is it REALLY locked and you CAN'T go there. Is it it wide open with a little black line drawn around it and a sign vainly marking it as "Called For"?

I could definitely create and publish my own rules for the same concept and have thought about it. Pretty much two things stop me.

1. I don't quite feel it would be right.

2. I don't think many people would care for another set of rules for the same basic concept.

So yes, locked is probably too strong of a word. But it's the word that has been used to describe material that has been published in PDF and I wanted to use the word to illustrate my point.

 

[BryonD]

I could definitely create and publish my own rules for the same concept and have thought about it. Pretty much two things stop me.

1. I don't quite feel it would be right.

2. I don't think many people would care for another set of rules for the same basic concept.

So yes, locked is probably too strong of a word. But it's the word that has been used to describe material that has been published in PDF and I wanted to use the word to illustrate my point.

Thanks. I respect your opinion in #1 and agree you may be correct on #2.
This could probably be it's own discussion, but there is plenty on-topic fodder for this thread.