My phone call with Creg Leeds

[Bigassgeek]

So, the basic message is "F*** you, we don't care about you, go and play Paizo, we don't care..."

WTF, what is the problem with Wizards?, I almost feel bad for giving all the money I gave to them.

What could Wizards do that would make you happy? Really? What is it that you want them to do? Hire a second staff to produce products for 3.x?

Yes, they don't care about you as a customer. Know why? Because you are not their customer! You don't like the product they are making. This isn't rocket science. They make a product that you don't like. You stop buying it. The end.

And why did you ever just give Wizards your money? You should never give a company money. You should trade money for goods, like most of us do. Go into a store, hand over money, get a book or something in return. Don't just give it to them! Then you'll feel like you're, you know, entitled or something, and you're likely to get your feelings hurt!

 

[Halivar]

I don't understand the 3-4 people who are upset just because WotC "is even fine with the fact that a fraction of the gamers went to Paizo. As long as everybody plays D&D that's fine."

Edition warriors (on both sides) seem to be playing up a pretty much non-existent Paizo/WotC rivalry. WotC is saying they have no beef whatsoever with Pathfinder. Many WotC folks have even said, on these boards, that they like Paizo, and have Pathfinder subscriptions. Believe it or not, it may even be that folks at WotC want Pathfinder, and Paizo, to succeed.

Greg Leeds' statement here is saying essentially this: "3.5 is still D&D. We like people playing D&D. If they're not playing 4E, we are cool with them playing 3.5E in the form of Pathfinder."

It is my opinion that saying "WotC doesn't want me as a customer anymore" is silly because WotC doesn't even know who you are. People tell WotC they don't wanna play 4E and are going the Pathfinder, and WotC tells them that it's a fine idea, because they want everyone to play D&D regardless of edition. And they get pilloried for it. That's ridiculous.

 

[Bumbles]

I can't speak for Magic, but these "vanity" boardgames are the minority and pale in comparison to the classic Risk, Monopoly, etc. A game is still a good game no matter how much time has passed. Look at Chess.

I don't know what's in the minority or not, sorry, but I have no idea what the sales are. I can only speak for *my* enjoyment, which is increased by the changes and the availability of options. As far as the passage of time goes, and Chess...well, Chess is far far older than D&D, and has actually evolved considerably over that period of time. And heck, even in modern times, there are folks (including Bobby Fischer) who have advocated changes.

Maybe in a couple hundred years D&D will be as relatively static as Chess may appear to you now, but then again, maybe not. D&D is relatively wider in its rule set than Chess is. A lot more room for changes...though if you've looked at all the Chess variants in the world, you might see a lot of variety.

Even Checkers manages quite a lot really. Do you know about the must-jump rule? I didn't till High School. We just didn't play that way. Things like Flying Kings? Even more different.

Of course, if you think about Competitive Chess you might think there's something static going on there. I can see why they keep the rules more fixed for that, but I don't see that happening in D&D so there's really no reason or expectation of it. I haven't yet heard of any game of D&D where they didn't have some sort of house rule, even if they didn't represent it that way.

And some competitive sports ARE full of change. I'm watching Speed right now, and they just showed Richard Petty's old car...the ones today are QUITE different.

Oh sure, they're still trying to race for the win, so that hasn't changed, but a lot of other things have.

4e is apparently the most radical change. The thing is, how much of the core is core. I think 4e is a bit much. Other RPGs release new editions, but from what I've seen, they are usually evolutionary. GURPS, CoC, Storyteller and others haven't changed that much compared to the 3e / 4e gap.

Perhaps they didn't need to do so? All of those games which I'm familiar with have a bit of an advantage as they were made with the lessons of D&D from the beginning. Maybe they even need a change, who knows? I don't play them enough to offer much input on them.

I agree that 4E is a radical change, but I don't think it went beyond the acceptable, and as far as most of the changes go, well I like them. The game is just so much smoother now, and the game seems to be based on an understanding of mechanics, and themes, not just stuff bolted on because it seems cool.

The best example I can give of this is fighters, who aren't just a bland class that wears armor, but can now *do* meaningful things in combat. Now I may not agree with all the details, mind you, but the reasoning? The design plan? That I can get behind.

If by core you mean "just a fantasy game" that's not enough, IMO, for D&D to be strong.

While I'm not quite comfortable with any of the ideas I've come up for describing the "core" of D&D, I would hold it to be something more substantial than just fantasy. And considering the examples of the old Buck Rogers game, Gamma World, and even d20 Modern, obviously the mechanics of D&D have been transplanted into a few different places.

I'll leave aside the question of what such things as the movie, television shows and Atari game which bore the D&D name aside.

It makes sense for long-term strategy for games that you don't rock the boat too much.

OTOH if you don't rock the boat at all, then maybe you end up losing out to the other games which don't have the legacy of design mistakes and complications to get over. Or who just offer something new. There's a reason why Wizards AND TSR before that add to the game. Ain't going to get nowhere just selling the core books all the time, and there's a limit to how many adventures you're going to sell.

If you want D&D as something you can pass down to your kids and grand kids, you need a core base, such as Risk and Monopoly. If each generation has to learn all new rules it's not going to be a long-term property. I would really like D&D to last over 100 years.

If I didn't have the option of playing Transformers Risk, or Risk Godstorm, I know I wouldn't be passing it along to anyone. Just wouldn't be interesting.

Probably one reason why I haven't played Monopoly in over a dozen years. Maybe there's folks out there doing something interesting with Monopoly? I don't know, I've heard there's a competitive Scrabble league, but never paid attention to Monopoly. I do know though, that in its origins, Monopoly did have quite a few revisions going on, and thinking back on it, I remember playing the NES version of Monopoly...it has a variety of variations built into it.

Apparently there's some appeal to it.

I don't subscribe to the whole "RPG evolution" theories that have been proposed over the years.

That's ok, neither do I. However, I do recognize that the game had enough of a legacy that it benefited from being rebuilt almost from scratch and I'm glad Wizards did such a good job with it.

If this "constant change" strategy was viable, then Hasbro would be doing it to all their boardgames. They don't.

All? Well, I don't know about all of their boardgames, for some it might not be viable, but they do it enough that I would say it does have some validity. Risk, as I already mentioned, and also Axis and Allies, and probably some others. Not to mention all the variety that pops up in their toy lines. GI Joe and Barbie have gone through quite a few phases, y'know?

While I accept revisions and clarifications, at the core a solid game is still static.

To a certain extent yes. But what is the core? I don't think 4e, 3e, 2e, even 1e messed with the core of the game...though I have heard from people who think they did. Then again, I'm not quite sure how I'd define the core myself yet, so who knows?

Settler's of Catan has been around for a while and rules options have been created, but at its core it's still the same game.

And yet they sell a whole lot of Expansions and other varieties. Obviously they see value in doing that. I never quite understood Cities and Knights of Cataan, but it and a bunch of others have shown up.

And shoot, sorry for being so long-winded, hope I'm at least making sense.

 

[Voadam]

Brix,

What specific suggestions/questions/concerns did you end up raising with him?

 

[Mistwell]

So, the basic message is "F*** you, we don't care about you, go and play Paizo, we don't care..."

WTF, what is the problem with Wizards?, I almost feel bad for giving all the money I gave to them.

I don't see any way you can read what they said in the manner you seem to have read it. So, maybe I am missing something. Could you please quote where you think they implied this?

 

[Mark]

I don't see any way you can read what they said in the manner you seem to have read it. So, maybe I am missing something. Could you please quote where you think they implied this?

I'm guessing this is a reaction to the combination of this PR and Scott's general thread suggesting that players of all editions are their core fans but they don't intend to support older editions yet they do intend to continue to try and convert them to the new edition. Seems like some players of older editions find that to be less than they hoped. If WotC does manage to come up with a new electronic way of keeping old material available and doesn't tuck it away behind the DDI, which would require people to subsrcibe to even make a purchase or get older freebies, then that will be about as much as I think anyone should expect if they fall into that segment of the market that is considered a core fan by WotC but is not interested in the new edition.

 

[Sagawork_Studios]

Any way to get confirmation? This would indeed be amazing.

FWIW, I do not read:

* But (and now for the big news) Wizards is looking for ways to publish old (i.e. pre 4E Realms) contents in form of electronic media.

As they are going to do new, pre-4E Forgotten Realms. I believe that this is merely a specific point to assure fans that old Grey-Box, World of Greyhawk, Planescape et.al stuff will be definitely available again in electonic media (other than a conventional PDF).

BTW, nice handle, Lord Knight of the Gabala

 

[doctorhook]

I really don't understand how so many people in this thread (at least a handful) seem to read so much contempt and hostility into this conversation, when nothing suggests that Greg Leeds was anything but pleasant.

I'm going to assume that these folks are reading what they expect to read; they expect WotC to behave contemptuously or pitilessly (or worse!), and therefore assume that what the hear or read about WotC is a reflection of those traits. In this manner, anything other than, "We're going to undo everything we've changed for 4E!" acquires the meaning, "We only care about your money, puny customer!"

Anyway, ridiculousness (literally; it deserves ridicule) aside, colour me impressed! I think it's a big sign when a corporate head-honcho takes the time to address an individual customer's concerns personally, especially in this volatile fanbase. (Nerdrage explosions abound.)

 

[Kitsune]

The thing that made me sneer at the recounting of the interview wasn't any imagined implication that Mr. Leeds was unpleasant, I'm sure he was perfectly nice. It was that, among the topics listed, the most glaringly obvious was omitted. The 'if X people downloaded PDFs of your product, and a tenth of those people paid for it, who thought it would be a great idea to piss off the paying people and refuse to sell to them so that NONE of the people downloading the PDFs are paying for it'?

That's the one I'm all sorts of eager to hear anyone at WotC try to address, as it doesn't make even a tiny smidgen of sense. And that's also the one question they seem to be avoiding like the plague.

 

[Bumbles]

The thing that made me sneer at the recounting of the interview wasn't any imagined implication that Mr. Leeds was unpleasant, I'm sure he was perfectly nice. It was that, among the topics listed, the most glaringly obvious was omitted. The 'if X people downloaded PDFs of your product, and a tenth of those people paid for it, who thought it would be a great idea to piss off the paying people and refuse to sell to them so that NONE of the people downloading the PDFs are paying for it'?

See, the way I see it is that's not what they are choosing. They're just accepting the consequence of some subset of their customer base which requires PDFs being the ones upset as the price of choosing to cut off the piracy crowd from the easy grab of their high-quality PDFs. And for those customers who find a DDI subscription acceptable, they may not be losing anything, and depending on what comes from them next, some of them may eventually be getting what they need anyway. I don't know what non-PDF options they're looking at, but who knows, maybe there is something acceptable in the works.

Also, I'd say that the remark about them not being able to make anybody happy is where they did address that question, at least by my reading. I may be totally wrong there, but it's not like we got a full transcription of the call.