Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[enrious]

What are you converting, if I may ask? We know it's not 4E modules, as you won't even look at them.

See above.

"Properly" is certainly subjective. I can understand that you may not be able to convert a 4E module to your satisfaction. My main point wasn't "BUY STUFF FROM MY EDITION!" It was that you should not ignore material entirely from a company with a reputation for good work (like Paizo or ENWorld) simply because it doesn't fit your edition of choice. For example, I can't think of one WotC 4E module I would recommend to someone for conversion to any other game.

I do not have unlimited time in a day or week to work on an adventure for my group. If the fancy strikes me to buy a prepared adventure, then one that will require a minimum, if any, amount of conversion gets my interest whereas one that very likely would require a greater amount of effort will not.

I thought I was clear that it was an issue for me. If you want to imply that I was applying my mileage to anyone else, you are mistaken.

You only need know the rules you are playing in and adapt as needed.

Sorry, no idea where I got the impression you were speaknig for more than yourself.

No idea at all.

What's really odd is that you would bring up the Edition War Defense when I didn't attack any edition. I espoused the support I give Paizo in buying their adventure paths and using them in the edition of my choice. I agreed with you jokingly about the "bother" it is to convert, which apparently isn't a bother anymore because it's so easy for you. And I stated why *I* stopped playing your edition of choice. There was no intent to snipe anyone's game of choice. Obviously there was some humor that missed its mark, but that is the danger of comedy, especially in gaming. Because. Gaming. Is. Serious. Business.

No, but if you can't convey the humor, don't even try. The fact that I had to ask if you were being snarky when you said, "Converting stuff to 3E is a bother. Check."

But no, really my fault for thinking when you said were indeed being snarky that you were indeed speaking for more than yourself.

My bad.

I'm sure the writers at Paizo and here at ENWorld would love to hear that enrious thinks their creativity is a waste of money. That's the most important part of any adventure to me, the creative ideas the writers come up with. Adapting the crunch is the easy part compared to that, even for me in 3E.

I'm sure they don't care. And nice strawman you've erected, would you like me to give a match to light it?

I said if I purchased an adventure and I was only able to use one page from it (regardless of what's on that page), then it'd be a waste of my money.

Keep trying to win though. It totally scores you points with someone, I'm sure. Let me know when the fight's over.

There is validity to what Morrus and others have said. And those concerns lie on the side of the system you *are* using, IMO, not the game you are converting from.

Absolutely, just as converting a 3.5/Pathfinder for 4e would likely not be a minor undertaing. A point I very much agree with.

If you can do something as creative as War of the Burning Sky (which I've enjoyed as a player), Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves, etc., please, please, please get a job with ENWorld or Paizo, or start your own company. Then I would buy what your selling too.

Oh gosh darn it, aren't you so cute, thinking you'll win a non-fight by putting words into other people's mouths.

You're soo cute when you think you sound adult.

*pinches cheeks*

Wasn't trying to win or be right, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just sharing my opinions and personal experiences as people are wont to do on a message board.

Right, I totally understand you say you aren't.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

See above.





I do not have unlimited time in a day or week to work on an adventure for my group. If the fancy strikes me to buy a prepared adventure, then one that will require a minimum, if any, amount of conversion gets my interest whereas one that very likely would require a greater amount of effort will not.





Sorry, no idea where I got the impression you were speaknig for more than yourself.

No idea at all.



No, but if you can't convey the humor, don't even try. The fact that I had to ask if you were being snarky when you said, "Converting stuff to 3E is a bother. Check."

But no, really my fault for thinking when you said were indeed being snarky that you were indeed speaking for more than yourself.

My bad.



I'm sure they don't care. And nice strawman you've erected, would you like me to give a match to light it?

I said if I purchased an adventure and I was only able to use one page from it (regardless of what's on that page), then it'd be a waste of my money.

Keep trying to win though. It totally scores you points with someone, I'm sure. Let me know when the fight's over.




Absolutely, just as converting a 3.5/Pathfinder for 4e would likely not be a minor undertaing. A point I very much agree with.




Oh gosh darn it, aren't you so cute, thinking you'll win a non-fight by putting words into other people's mouths.

You're soo cute when you think you sound adult.

*pinches cheeks*




Right, I totally understand you say you aren't.

Reported for flaming and massive condescension.

 

[renau1g]

me too, missed your post Aberzanzorax, sorry mods

 

[enrious]

I've never been able to run on the fly with D&D for some reason. I could do it with my eyes closed running Shadowrun though.

My problems compounded from my personal preferences. I *love* options. The more new options available the giddier I would get. The problem with those new options in 3E in the hands of my system masters was that they could create REALLY powerful characters. This wouldn't be a problem if my entire table was filled with system masters. The power gap between them and the rest of the group kept creeping toward the point where I felt like we were playing Rifts. The system masters had Mega-damage armor and weapons, while the rest of the group did not. To challenge the system masters spelled death for the rest. To challenge the rest lead to cake-walks dominated by the system masters. Neither way were the majority of the group having fun. And I wasn't having fun trying to balance such a wide gap. This isn't an edition war thing to me. I was ready to quit 3E before 4E was ever announced.

I guess I'm lucky. My players know I'm a great min-maxer and being the DM, I automatically win any arms race.

So we sit down and have fun without all the fussin' and a-feudin'.

 

[enrious]

Reported for flaming and massive condescension.

That's fine, Mr. Pot.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

LOL.

Care to quote where I came close to the level of scorn that you did with "pinches cheeks"?


If so, report me as well.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gentlemen,

We expect you to show respect for your fellow users. We don't care if you disagree, or how exasperating you may find them to be. Being a jerk about it isn't acceptable.

Please continue as if enrious won't be joining the conversation further. Thank you.

 

[renau1g]

*Shrug* I was able to convert on the fly - generally by not bothering. The differences were minor enough to pretty much ignore.

Time taken: zero. It is very hard to get a shorter time than that.

I really never saw the changes between 3 and 3.5 as being all that massive. I did see people blowing the changes out of proportion though.

The Auld Grump

I don't think YB was talking about 3e to 3.5e, he was talking about same edition. Ex. a lot of the Paizo ones were meat grinders, very challenging encounters, very little opportunity to rest, and I loved them. However, my group would rate just below 1 on a 1-10 scale of optimization skill (not a one played a druid or wizard or cleric, just had a wand or 3 of CLW to heal up after fights) and so I had to cut, trim, delevel, etc. to make them work for my group.

My experience with 4e conversion has been similar to VB's, when I changed Kingmaker over, it took me around 1/2 hour to convert the entire module to my game, including fluff tweaks to fit my world. I know it took me much longer in 3e to do the same, even though it was the same edition. The e-tools help a lot.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>
In the one case, if Wizards does classify us as a "partners", that does shift the arugment more to aiding these companies over ignoring them.

But look, I was trying to encourage a dialogue with the public an WOTC and offer suggestions that I thought would work, helping Wizards as much as it helps us (helps us more, I admit, but if it helps them even a tiny bit, it can justify the effort). It wasn't my intent to fuel the conflict about which was the better system. It wasn't my intent to appear lazy or ignorant to the situation. I got three book coming at least this year regardless of any response from WOTC. I never said I hated Paizo or Pathfinder. I have no experience with them whatsoever.

Maybe Jerry Holkins is right; maybe I am the black goat with a thousand young.

I thought your letter was sincere and useful, but not convincing. (I'll try to make that clearer).

While I don't think you were in any way being hurtful or angry toward WotC, I do think you were offering a few things they could do to help yourself and other third party publishers grow and prosper. This is, in my opinion, a fine thing to do. You told them HOW to do it, but you didn't tell them WHY to do it.


I don't think the letter (as has been discussed in this thread) offered WotC many reasons as to why it was beneficial TO THEM.


I think to you, myself, and perhaps some others, there are reasons that are so obvious they seem not even worth mentioning. On the other hand, the fact that WotC ISN'T doing this, in some ways, shows the necessity of mentioning what may be obvious to us, but they may have reasons (perhaps very good reasons) of disagreeing.


I forked this thread to a brainstorm of possible reasons why WotC should support third party publishers, not only to be nice, but because I do think it may truly be within their best interests.

Here's the forked thread as a potential clean slate:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-in...od-wizards-coast-support-3pps-brainstorm.html

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

I thought your letter was sincere and useful, but not convincing. (I'll try to make that clearer).

I don't think the letter (as has been discussed in this thread) offered WotC many reasons as to why it was beneficial TO THEM.

I forked this thread to a brainstorm of possible reasons why WotC should support third party publishers, not only to be nice, but because I do think it may truly be within their best interests.

Here's the forked thread as a potential clean slate:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-in...od-wizards-coast-support-3pps-brainstorm.html

Yes! That's exactly the kind of post I wanted to read.
Honestly, I thought I did give reasons when I mentioned market share and product penetration. Perhaps it got lost in my intent. For that, I apologize.
I offered that since the GSL requires that we refference definitions and not copy them, it encourages people wanting to play within our settings to purchase the core books. I understand this is a chicken/egg situation, as I assume most people play D&D and THEN seek out campaign settings, not the other way around (if I'm incorrect in that assumption, then it plays in my favor). As for market share, it does help a product line when you look to a shelf (real or virtual) and see hundreds of products for a rule system instead of a dozen or so.

I know the online store was the biggest reach, and I mentioned that in the letter. But it is also the only proposal that assures a return for WOTC. They may not endorse selling D&D PDFs but that doesnt stop the rest of us, and taking a share of each sale could work in their favor. The reason why they wouldn't do it is the fear that our sales would cut into theirs (which I doubt) or (most likely) the logistics to setup an online store for products they don't produce may be too great compared to potential returns. Given the success of the Paizo store and RPGNow, I believe the business model to be valid.

The hardest point to prove is consumer opinion. It appears so arbitrary and difficult to quantify. I am sure there are camps that insist that public opinion towards WOTC is and has always been high. I think it could stand to improve but it may not be a factor in their business practice.