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.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias
- Thread starter Wicht
- Start date
- Status
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.
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?
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
First Post
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
First Post
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
Hero
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
Creative Mountain Games
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.
Dias Ex Machina
Publisher / Game Designer
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.
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
Hero
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
Explorer
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status
Similar Threads
