Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[MrGrenadine]

We'll probably never know what Paizo would do if they created their own gaming system because Paizo probably never will during out lifetimes. Until they do, Paizo is still standing on the shoulders of what WotC created (bound by the license), and it's just unfair to compare their position to WotC's.

But to be fair, WotC didn't create D&D either. Their creations are standing on the shoulders of TSR's creations, and those stand on EGGs.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

See upthread.

I honestly can't believe that anyone would argue that quality 3PPs wouldn't benefit the brand in the long run. It happens all the time, in other industries--a company will produce goods and/or services that are linked to a larger, stronger brand, and all boats raise. I have no hard numbers for this, of course, but I have eyes that see companies besides Apple that sell iPod chargers, companies besides Ford that sell seat covers for Mustangs, companies besides Eureka that sell compatible vacuum cleaner bags, etc etc.

So given that, is it really so difficult to think that a terrific, quality 3PP product for D&D would encourage someone to play D&D, (and buy books, subscribe to DDi, etc.)?

Maybe the problem rests in what "quality" is?

Well, I know people who bought the 3.X PHB because of at least two 3pp:
Spycraft (first edition - before there was ever a D20 Modern) by AEG
Skull & Bones by Green Ronin

I also someone who bought the PHB because of Nyambe, but as far as I know they never actually ran it.

So it did happen

But to be fair, WotC didn't create D&D either. Their creations are standing on the shoulders of TSR's creations, and those stand on EGGs.

Who is standing on Dave Arneson (who used Chainmail for the first RPG, though it was a miniatures wargame), who is standing on EGG again (for writing Chainmail).

The Auld Grump

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Who is standing on Dave Arneson (who used Chainmail for the first RPG, though it was a miniatures wargame), who is standing on EGG again (for writing Chainmail).

Yep. You gotta feel for Arneson (may he rest in peace). He was always perceived as the Robin to Gary's Batman, fairly or unfairly.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Well, I'm not signing it because I don't agree. I enjoy having almost no competition.

That's un-American! Next you'll be saying you don't believe in Santa Claus!

Without a demonstrable benefit to WotC it's no more than a list for gifts from Santa Claus.

In all seriousness, I would like to take this moment to thank Russ (and Eric Noah) for maintaining this site that we can all access for free. It really contributes to the betterment of our hobby and enables us to have these sorts of discussions on "neutral ground."

Thank you, gentlemen.

 

[BryonD]

Pathfinder, while catering to the 3.xe was something new to explore. At the same time it was so close to 3.x (claiming compatibility) that must have cut it for many skeptical fans that had second thoughts regarding the steps towards 4e; fans that otherwise could have given 4e a better or a second look. Pathfinder was an ideal solution for many doubtful fans.

Moreover by being actively supported by ex D&D players and alive by being available on shelf, Pathfinder gets a share of the new blood of the D&D hobby.

Mostly true.

As you yourself just said though, gamers tend to be willing to explore options.
Now you are trying to contradict that point and claim that players turned their back 4E without even giving it a fair assessment. You were right the first time and wrong now that you are contradicting yourself.

Again, a key point that you seem to be steadfastly ignoring is that the major split in the market existing BEFORE Pathfinder was announced.

But even after that, as I said, the common reply out there is "4E sucks". What I don't hear is "I don't know if I like 4E or not, Pathfinder came out so I never looked." There may be the rare exception that meets this criteria, but they are so rare as to be meaningless to the overall market.

People don't play 4E because they don't like. And "don't like it" is not the same thing as "don't know if they like it or not."

 

[BryonD]

So given that, is it really so difficult to think that a terrific, quality 3PP product for D&D would encourage someone to play D&D, (and buy books, subscribe to DDi, etc.)?

Several of the posts I've read recently have made me start to change my mind on this.

I am absolutely certain that it worked great for 3E. The OGL blossomed vast variations that were available. People found those new options and expanded their games into more areas that appealed to more people.

But that is a feedback system with a fairly low yield. If Joe and I each buy PHs and then Joe buys a cool new 3PP product to take the game in a new direction, I'm not going to buy a new PH because of it. It is only when a NEW person buys that things grow. Though, admittedly, that is only one aspect. If Joe's new game keep me playing 3E instead of moving on to Warhammer as my primary game, then two months later I buy the latest splat book, WotC has benefited. But still, the point is that the yield is low.

Clearly, for 3E it worked. But would it work for 4E? My reflex answer is: of course, why would it be any different? But that may be wrong.

For one thing, with the split market gives a smaller foundation. Maybe the feedback system just doesn't have a critical mass to move forward. Of course if that alone answered the question, then it wouldn't be working for Pathfinder either, since Pathfinder is somewhere in the ballpark of the same market.

But also, we keep hearing of 3PPs doing well in PF and not in 4E. (The exception of ENWorld clearly noted). Maybe this yield = X% and X is not the same for 3E as it is for 4E. Fiery Dragon was a solid name in the 3PP field during 3E. They produced a 4E product and recently said that it did not sell well at all. Why not? And they seem to be extremely typical. (Again, ENWorld seems to be the classic "exception".)

Perhaps 4E fans (as a collective market, I'm certain major exceptions exist) are not nearly as inclined to buy 4E stuff. I know I've been in numerous discussions in which it was more than obvious to me that the typical 4E fan sits down at the table with very different expectations than myself. Maybe that plays into it.

So a smaller base may be a problem. But if you are using a feedback system and you turn the gain way way down. It isn't going to perform.

Granted, this analysis is not going to be anything WotC presumed. If anything they assumed the opposite: A) everyone and even more will play our new game and b) 3PPs might take too much of our market share. So I'm certain this thinking has nothing to do with how we got to the GSL. But it seems to model our current position.

 

[xechnao]

Mostly true.

As you yourself just said though, gamers tend to be willing to explore options.
Now you are trying to contradict that point and claim that players turned their back 4E without even giving it a fair assessment. You were right the first time and wrong now that you are contradicting yourself.

Again, a key point that you seem to be steadfastly ignoring is that the major split in the market existing BEFORE Pathfinder was announced.

But even after that, as I said, the common reply out there is "4E sucks". What I don't hear is "I don't know if I like 4E or not, Pathfinder came out so I never looked." There may be the rare exception that meets this criteria, but they are so rare as to be meaningless to the overall market.

People don't play 4E because they don't like. And "don't like it" is not the same thing as "don't know if they like it or not."

The matter of liking something or not, in entertainment products is mostly a matter of choice or preference among alternatives -granted that the market exists more or less. Liking something or not, in this case is not an absolute thing.

I am not contradicting myself. The keyword here is preference.

Paizo, in its marketing campaign for Pathfinder, tried to emphasize certain things. The strong points were 3.5 compatibility and the effort to fix 3.5e while avoiding certain effects of 4e that they did not like -the negative effects for 4e. But the "negative" thing here is not something absolute. It is relative to something and to someone's relative tastes. What I am trying to say is that this matter is about choice. A choice about certain needs. And Pathfinder is a choice. An alternative choice to 4e.

The same thing did Wotc in their campaign regarding 4e. They presented 4e as a solution to the problems of 3.5e. Yet again, the matter for Wotc is to convince people that they can make a choice to invest into 4e and that choice would benefit them in one way or another by satisfying certain needs.

These needs are informed. And here is where competition takes place. Competitors will try to make the most out of your specific needs that they can satisfy better than anyone else and offer the best overall package for these specific needs. In this process they will try to emphasize the importance of these needs versus others, comparable ones, as well as emphasize their performance towards satisfying this kind of needs.

This is the modern market competition environment. This is how Paizo and Wotc do business.

 

[renau1g]

But even after that, as I said, the common reply out there is "4E sucks". What I don't hear is "I don't know if I like 4E or not, Pathfinder came out so I never looked." There may be the rare exception that meets this criteria, but they are so rare as to be meaningless to the overall market.

People don't play 4E because they don't like. And "don't like it" is not the same thing as "don't know if they like it or not."

Agreed, although most of those people say 4e sucks without even trying it, based on preview material

If I based my PF view on preview/playtest material I would have said OMG they overpowered everything (just like people say about 4e), like the racial hit points, extra powers for clerics, etc, etc.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The matter of liking something or not, in entertainment products is mostly a matter of choice or preference among alternatives -granted that the market exists more or less. Liking something or not, in this case is not an absolute thing.

I am not contradicting myself. The keyword here is preference.

Paizo, in its marketing campaign for Pathfinder, tried to emphasize certain things. The strong points were 3.5 compatibility and the effort to fix 3.5e while avoiding certain effects of 4e that they did not like -the negative effects for 4e. But the "negative" thing here is not something absolute. It is relative to something and to someone's relative tastes. What I am trying to say is that this matter is about choice. A choice about certain needs. And Pathfinder is a choice. An alternative choice to 4e.

The same thing did Wotc in their campaign regarding 4e. They presented 4e as a solution to the problems of 3.5e. Yet again, the matter for Wotc is to convince people that they can make a choice to invest into 4e and that choice would benefit them in one way or another by satisfying certain needs.

These needs are informed. And here is where competition takes place. Competitors will try to make the most out of your specific needs that they can satisfy better than anyone else and offer the best overall package for these specific needs. In this process they will try to emphasize the importance of these needs versus others, comparable ones, as well as emphasize their performance towards satisfying this kind of needs.

This is the modern market competition environment. This is how Paizo and Wotc do business.

However - there is a perception, and a true one in my opinion, that WotC was also saying that 3.X was bad. Their previews were focused on the negative, and much that they were trumpeting as negative was in fact enjoyed by many people. (Traipsing along with the fairies, anyone?)

Pathfinder instead focused on the good in their previews and advertising. The part of the game that they enjoyed, and then asked folks what they liked. WotC on the other hand kept the fact that they were even working on 4e tightly under wraps, and went so far as to deny it, even as their game designers were plugging away.

Focusing on what the game designers perceived as the negative aspects of 3.X D&D did a good deal of damage to the image of 4e, long before it was released. (When people could start hating it for itself, not just its previews. )

Focusing on the good aspects of 3.X did a good deal towards polishing the image of Paizo in public opinion.

Publicly waffling about OGL/GSL seriously disgruntled a lot of folks who had come to appreciate the OGL, and then not even getting the GSL out in a timely fashion made them look incompetent on top of it. How many times did WotC contradict itself, publicly, before the GSL was released? And then they had to go and fix it when it became apparent that the license as written was not bringing 3pp to their door.

Paizo did not need to waffle, a lot of their license already had a working model in the form of the OGL and the D20 STL. So they were able to get their game out the door without a hitch.

The Auld Grump, who still enjoys his bad wrong fun. And roleplaying games too!

 

[xechnao]

However - there is a perception, and a true one in my opinion, that WotC was also saying that 3.X was bad. Their previews were focused on the negative, and much that they were trumpeting as negative was in fact enjoyed by many people. (Traipsing along with the fairies, anyone?)

True. Not only do I agree here, I also mentioned this in my post above.

Pathfinder instead focused on the good in their previews and advertising. The part of the game that they enjoyed, and then asked folks what they liked.

True. But this was an answer to what Wotc did. Moreover Paizo did try to explain or just say why they did not follow 4e and contrast it with a preferable 3.xe regarding certain important points and needs of their public.

Focusing on the good aspects of 3.X did a good deal towards polishing the image of Paizo in public opinion.

Publicly waffling about OGL/GSL seriously disgruntled a lot of folks who had come to appreciate the OGL, and then not even getting the GSL out in a timely fashion made them look incompetent on top of it. How many times did WotC contradict itself, publicly, before the GSL was released? And then they had to go and fix it when it became apparent that the license as written was not bringing 3pp to their door.

Paizo did not need to waffle, a lot of their license already had a working model in the form of the OGL and the D20 STL. So they were able to get their game out the door without a hitch.

All true.