D&D 5E Perfect example of the kind of interaction that I wish Wizards had with it's community.

[delericho]

The Jury Duty represents a missing member from within one's own group, and is a problem that could potentially be solved through temporary internal restructuring. While there may be factors which preclude such an internal activity, it is still internal and only marginally related to the activities of a third party.

The problem was caused by the actions of a third party, and there was nothing WotC could do to prevent it. Yes, they could potentially have worked around it, but it remains the case that both companies faced problems not of their making. The detail of those problems isn't actually relevant to the double standard - see below.

My only point is that these two examples do not of themselves represent a complete double standard as there is a different of kinds in the problems.

You missed the second part of it: that Paizo's problem represents a rare communications mis-step for them yet they are met with overwhelming acceptance, while WotC's is a case of them communicating clearly, openly, and honestly and they get blasted. That's the double standard.

 

[Wicht]

You missed the second part of it: that Paizo's problem represents a rare communications mis-step for them yet they are met with overwhelming acceptance, while WotC's is a case of them communicating clearly, openly, and honestly and they get blasted. That's the double standard.

I got that point... but the reaction is still to two different scenarios. I know that I don't get upset anymore at any company that has shipping delays simply because I have become so aware of it as a potential reality. However, the ire directed at WotC (and not by me I will note as it doesn't affect me) is at a problem initially caused by a third party, but which has a potential internal solution. There is no internal solution to a shipping delay. There is for a missing team member.

 

[delericho]

I got that point... but the reaction is still to two different scenarios.

Fair enough, I guess. Although you're unlikely ever to get two scenarios that aren't different in some sense.

However, the ire directed at WotC (and not by me I will note as it doesn't affect me) is at a problem initially caused by a third party, but which has a potential internal solution. There is no internal solution to a shipping delay. There is for a missing team member.

It really depends on how determined they are.

IF WotC got sufficient notice of the jury duty and IF they got an accurate estimate for how long it would be before the person in question disappeared, then they could perhaps re-assign someone. But that also assumes they could find and train someone else to take over the work, are willing to pay for that person, and/or are willing to slow down some other task in order to prioritise the conversion documents.

It's certainly possible to work around the problem, but there's inevitably a cost involved. Eventually, there comes a point where it's not worth the cost.

(Of course, it's also true that technically someone could work around a shipping problem. Presumably the US hasn't been totally closed for business, so if someone absolutely had to get something through, they could - be it through some other port, or air freight, or whatever. Of course, the costs involved are so large as to make it an impractical solution - but then that's probably also true in WotC's case.)

 

[Wicht]

IF WotC got sufficient notice of the jury duty and IF they got an accurate estimate for how long it would be before the person in question disappeared, then they could perhaps re-assign someone. But that also assumes they could find and train someone else to take over the work, are willing to pay for that person, and/or are willing to slow down some other task in order to prioritise the conversion documents.

Yes, and in fairness, I think it worth noting that those who were complaining were actually, when it is all said and done, complaining that it was a low priority. Which, in fairness to WotC, maybe it should be a low priority. But in the view of those doing the complaining, it should not have been. So again, the standard is not a double standard so much as its an apparent difference of opinion as to what should be a priority and what should not be.

(Of course, it's also true that technically someone could work around a shipping problem.

Yes and no. If the shipping problem is unexpected then one has to calculate whether by the time the work-around has been done, ( work-around that would involve hiring a new printer, printing the product a second time, and then hiring a new shipper) the initial problem would already be solved. If you have product in crate stuck on a boat, stuck in port, or stuck in customs, there is no method of extracting it from that condition that is feasible. The only alternative is to start over and that is not guaranteed to be any faster, and is almost guaranteed to produce results later than the initial results would have been.

 

[delericho]

Yes, and in fairness, I think it worth noting that those who were complaining were actually, when it is all said and done, complaining that it was a low priority.

Most were. Sadly, not all. (Oddly, I can't link to a single post in that thread - see GlobeOfDankness' post second from the bottom of that page.)

Yes and no. If the shipping problem is unexpected then one has to calculate whether by the time the work-around has been done,

Which, of course, could also apply to jury duty - they could have estimated a week's absence, decided to take the hit, let the key guy go, and then discover that it's actually 4 months - by which point the guy they need to do the job is also the guy they need to train his replacement.

If you have product in crate stuck on a boat, stuck in port, or stuck in customs, there is no method of extracting it from that condition that is feasible. The only alternative is to start over...

I didn't say it was necessarily a practical, or even sane, solution.

 

[Wicht]

Which, of course, could also apply to jury duty - they could have estimated a week's absence, decided to take the hit, let the key guy go, and then discover that it's actually 4 months - by which point the guy they need to do the job is also the guy they need to train his replacement.

I hesitate to point this out, because I really don't have a major beef with WotC and don't want to be perceived as piling on them, but I must confess that this is one of the cases where all the justifications being made on their behalf really make them appear worse than the lack of justifications. If you are running a major department where only 1 person has the ability to finish a product, train a replacement, or what not, you are really, really running a badly organized department. Especially when its a non-mechanical sort of department like game design and production. I can't imagine what sort of things they could be doing where only 1 person in the entire department has the skills necessary for any of that.

 

[delericho]

I hesitate to point this out, because I really don't have a major beef with WotC and don't want to be perceived as piling on them, but I must confess that this is one of the cases where all the justifications being made on their behalf really make them appear worse than the lack of justifications. If you are running a major department where only 1 person has the ability to finish a product, train a replacement, or what not, you are really, really running a badly organized department.

It's not that there's only one guy who can do these things, it's that there's one guy who's best able to do these things. If someone else has to take over, that's more expensive. If the key guy isn't available to do the handover/training, it's more expensive still. That's just the nature of any specialised work - it's not easily transferrable.

And the calculation may well change with the circumstances - if he's estimated to be away for a week, the conclusion may well be "leave it, we'll take the hit". If he's estimated to be away for six months, it may well swing the other way. And if he's estimated to be away for a week and then that changes, the conclusion could well swing back.

Ultimately, none of us know the inner workings of WotC's D&D department. That being the case, speculating that they're lying or that they're incompetent when there's another explanation available is unfair. IMO, of course.

 

[Wicht]

Ultimately, none of us know the inner workings of WotC's D&D department. That being the case, speculating that they're lying or that they're incompetent when there's another explanation available is unfair. IMO, of course.

I agree, mostly.

I just think that some explanations given to defend them make them sound incompetent. Their work's not all that specialized.

 

[Icon_Charlie]

15 pages of interesting topic.

1. I agree with the OP.
2. Paizo and other game companies, such as Green Ronin have good customer communication than WotC
4. The Business ethics of 4E is what killed 4E. I myself wanted a license and was turned off by it. I purchased another (one of many) home instead.
5. Wotc needs more to communicate with their customer base more in this way there will be less error on information on hand.
6. The RPG market is shrinking, which is one of the reasons why I am hesitant in doing any 3rd party production work unless I need a tax right off on something. What is taking it's place are board games currently. CCG's are as well but more so is in boardgaming. This does not mean you can't make a profit in this sector. It means you that you have really think everything through before jumping in.

7. PDF's are the future of keeping old genres of RPG games alive.

8. I am a neanderthal with a keyboard kicking and screaming into the 21st century. But by adapting to the new global economy means I can survive in a profitable manner. Otherwise I would be crushed by my competitors. But I know my customer base. I Think Paizo knows their customer base.

And I hope in the future WotC knows theirs.