Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[Wicht]

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.

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]

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]

More False Arguments

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!

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.

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]

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]

Time to Move on

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).