D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Oofta]

I'm not sure why you care why I care; to be honest, that smacks of "your points are less important than your motivations," with the implication that my motives are something suspect. I'd rather you look at the points I raised in and of themselves than trying to intuit some sort of deeper motivation on my part.

And, to reiterate again, it's the "how" by which companies seek to make money that's being discussed, because not every option is held to carry the same weight in terms of how acceptable people find those practices. I'm sure that WotC ran an internal analysis on the profitability that their OGL v1.1 would have gotten them, and I'm (almost as) certain that the people who made the decision to go ahead with that didn't care that they were reneging on their promise that the OGL v1.0a would be perpetual (and that using dubious legalese about the difference between "perpetual" and "irrevocable" was a sufficient excuse), endangering the livelihood of a lot of other people who worked in the same industry. Things like that don't become excusable just because companies are expected to chase profits. How they do it matters; it's why "ethically sourced" is a buzzword these days.

If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll notice that I acknowledged that the idea that smaller companies chase excellence (trusting the money to follow) while larger companies chase profits (putting excellence second, if that) is indeed a generalization. But it's not a generalization that's lacking in practical examples; when you're holding back popular monsters in order to ensure that a follow-up book will have higher sales, that's an example of trying to make money at the expense of your customers, rather than by doing as right by them as you can. To showcase an example of the opposite end of that generalization, all of Paizo's monsters are legally available for free online.


And I'm trying to tell you, the justifications for that attitude are already out there, and have been for a while. You are, if I'm reading you rightly, looking at things like the OGL scandal, the Pinkerton scandal, the $1,000 set of reprint M:tG boosters scandal, etc. and saying that they're all justifiable/excusable because companies are supposed to seek profits. I'm trying to tell you, that's not something that I – and, I believe, a lot of other people – give them a pass for.

The bigger a company is, the more decisions they make. The more decisions they make the more chances are that people will make stupid decisions. The small companies that make products that are not well received go out of business while big companies have more of a a chance to course correct. If you cherry pick things from smaller companies that you happen to like more, of course you will find things that you believe are handled better.

I'm not going to bother reiterating issues that were completely reversed.

In any case, I just don't think setting ROI goals is in any way wrong, nor do I think it's unique to larger businesses.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm just having a hard time seeing why you care. Or why you are implying that WOTC is somehow doing something wrong by looking at ROI. Of course they look at ROI, all companies do. They sell a wider range of products than a lot of TTRPG companies, so their target may be higher because they can invest money elsewhere to have higher profit. If ABC company is in the TTRPG business and they think they can make more money by diversifying or publishing something different after doing risk/benefit analysis, they will. If I can get paid X dollars per hour or X+10% per hour doing basically the same thing, I'm going to take the latter option.

This idea that smaller companies are somehow more "pure" is a myth. They may or may not be more innovative, a smaller group of decision makers may be more likely to take a risky gamble. You're also conflating some suit making a stupid decision(s) with ... what exactly I'm not sure.

It all simply sounds like "WOTC BAD" looking for justification whether that's your intent or not. Because I don't know what your intent is other than that.

To me your arguments reads, "I like WotC 5e and think they're fine, so any other opinion is invalid and should be fought and/or ignored".

 

[Alzrius]

The bigger a company is, the more decisions they make. The more decisions they make the more chances are that people will make stupid decisions. The small companies that make products that are not well received go out of business while big companies have more of a a chance to course correct. If you cherry pick things from smaller companies that you happen to like more, of course you will find things that you believe are handled better.

I'm not sure what difference you're drawing between a "stupid mistake" and an ethically-dubious decision, but I'll say that I don't think that it's just a matter of a company with more people necessarily resulting in a higher likelihood of something going off the rails; by that same token, having more people should allow for there to be more safeguards against something like that happening.

Likewise, course-correcting doesn't mean that their initial decisions are forgotten, or that people will see what their inclination was prior to them receiving pushback (particularly when, in the case of the OGL, we were told that it was ultimately money, not any ethical considerations, that forced WotC's hand). Obviously, any company with a long history behind it will have smart decisions and not-so-smart decisions, but patterns and trends can be seen over time; Paizo has their fair share of scandals, but they don't have a track record of repeatedly doing things that negatively impact their customers that I'm aware of.

I'm not going to bother reiterating issues that were completely reversed.

Again, that something was reversed does not mean that it can't be taken into consideration later on. Trust and goodwill don't work like that.

In any case, I just don't think setting ROI goals is in any way wrong, nor do I think it's unique to larger businesses.

I'll reiterate that seeking profit is not the bottom line; how a company makes money is the salient facet of this discussion.

 

[Oofta]

To me your arguments reads, "I like WotC 5e and think they're fine, so any other opinion is invalid and should be fought and/or ignored".

WOTC is no better or worse than most other companies. But your post sounds like " only complaints allowed".

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WOTC is no better or worse than most other companies. But your post sounds like " only complaints allowed".

I mean, they're better than Twitter or Phillip-Morris.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, they're better than Twitter or Phillip-Morris.

While not setting the bar very high, that was kind of a point I made a bit ago. Which I was told was not the issue, and then that it was, but it's not. I'm confused.

In any case, I give. I happen to like some of their products, when i do i consider buying them. On the scale of evil to saintly they're somewhere in the murky middle like all TTRPG companies.

 

[Parmandur]

I do not buy products from a company because I believe that theybare good: indeed, I assume that all business transactions or social exchanges I engage in are what I would term "cooperation with evil." The question isn't "is this company, or even individual, engaged in doing evil?" Because of course they are. The question is, does my toy purchase entail either a proximate or material cooperation in their evil? Does buying Planescape.entail any direct participation in the Pinkertons going to some dudes door to recover shady cards? No, it is remote and material at worst.

 

[Alzrius]

While not setting the bar very high, that was kind of a point I made a bit ago.

And the response was that other people set the bar higher, and that they have reasons for doing so which are justifiable and understandable.

Which I was told was not the issue, and then that it was, but it's not.

No, that's not an accurate summary of what you were told in this thread.

I'm confused.

Now that part I believe.

In any case, I give. I happen to like some of their products, when i do i consider buying them. On the scale of evil to saintly they're somewhere in the murky middle like all TTRPG companies.

I think that, if we're looking at all TTRPG companies, you can rank some higher than others on that scale.

 

[Parmandur]

I think that, if we're looking at all TTRPG companies, you can rank some higher than others on that scale.

Not really: pretty much every one yhst I know of has engaged in ethically compromised practices (like printing in China, for instance, or all the issues wirh squeaky stair steps that plague the industry), but passingly few that are so bad that buying their peodict is a proximate or material cooperation in their evil, so I would consider any RPG purchase to be about morally the same.

 

[Oofta]

And the response was that other people set the bar higher, and that they have reasons for doing so which are justifiable and understandable.

No, that's not an accurate summary of what you were told in this thread.

Now that part I believe.

I think that, if we're looking at all TTRPG companies, you can rank some higher than others on that scale.

First it was WOTC setting targets for ROI. I agree with that, I think all companies do the same; bigger companies simply have more leeway and more competing options on where to put their money. It's neither good nor (as was heavily implied in your statements whether intentional or not) bad. Then it shifted to "trust" and OGL which I would consider water under the bridge but apparently you do not.

In any case, unless there's something new I have nothing more to add.