D&D General Bob World Builder Recreates WOTC's "Do You Like Me?" Survey!

[Maxperson]

Well, 'service' is something different. With service we're now talking two separate things-- the object we are acquiring, and the actions and methods of the company (the service) that gets us said object.

I don't agree that it's something different. Almost every company selling a product is involved in service to some degree. Screwing over your customers and/or the 3rd party folks relying on your earlier promise is also part of service, and is extremely bad service.

But in this case WotC doesn't provide us with the service to acquire the object, they are only responsible for the object itself. The 'service' would be the business that I acquired said object from-- so for instance if Barnes & Noble got me my object quicker / more helpful / better conditioned than say Amazon did, then I'd go with B&N. Or if supporting a small business meant more than the price... getting the object from a game store instead of a big brand store. But in either case... the actions of WotC do not impact the service I receive in acquiring my rulebook, so I do not believe your statement matters in this case.

Is service important? In many things, absolutely. But not in this one, because the service is the store I get the book from, and WotC does not play a hand in my decision in that.

No. The store ALSO has service, but it's different from WotC's. The company PR, public facing statements, interactions with players, new releases, actions against people in the industry, etc. are all part of customer service.

For a lot of companies that service is to the distributers, who then have service to the end store. D&D is different. It has direct interaction with us in addition to distributers and stores.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't agree that it's something different. Almost every company selling a product is involved in service to some degree. Screwing over your customers and/or the 3rd party folks relying on your earlier promise is also part of service, and is extremely bad service.

No. The store ALSO has service, but it's different from WotC's. The company PR, public facing statements, interactions with players, new releases, actions against people in the industry, etc. are all part of customer service.

For a lot of companies that service is to the distributers, who then have service to the end store. D&D is different. It has direct interaction with us in addition to distributers and stores.

I disagree that WotC has direct interaction with me. Me specifically. My only interaction with Wizards of the Coast is that they are the company that produces the object I am going to buy. I'm not a 3rd party so anything they've done to 3rd parties doesn't affect me at all. And I have not experienced anything against me as a customer because everything I have spent money on I have received, with the transaction completed.

What you seem to be doing (to me) is being upset on behalf of other people. They got "bad service" and so you don't want to get WotC's product on their behalf. Which is... fine. Your choice, your decision. But this is why I say I personally do not "get it"... because I do not agree with that process. I am unconcerned with how other people interact with the companies they deal with. All I am concerned with is my personal interactions with the companies or services I deal with. And if I give some company or service X amount of dollars for that thing... then the transaction is over. Anything else outside of that is meaningless in my opinion.

 

[KYRON45]

The same people who insist they will never give Wotc their money again over the OGL whatever are the same people who will complain about layoffs when the affects of the boycotting hits the bean counters.
Where does it end?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Some people don't want to give their money to an entity they know will openly and brazenly do things they are morally opposed to with it. Like paying Pinkertons.

And they want to be convinced that the company has learned something and will stop.

I mean they won't and I'm just settled on never giving them money again, but hope springs eternal for some.

If a person doesn't want to get involved with some company for perceived issues... I do not see the point in waiting for "an apology" just so they can then feel good about buying stuff from them again. That just feels like someone trying to pat themselves on the back for "standing up" for something... when in truth they are ready and able to jump at the chance to get the thing they want as soon as they feel things have been "righted" in their mind.

To me... if you're going to bother doing that, have the guts to go all-in-- cut them off entirely, no ifs, ands, or buts. Don't wait for the apology, just move on.

 

[mamba]

If a person doesn't want to get involved with some company for perceived issues... I do not see the point in waiting for "an apology" just so they can then feel good about buying stuff from them again. That just feels like someone trying to pat themselves on the back for "standing up" for something... when in truth they are ready and able to jump at the chance to get the thing they want as soon as they feel things have been "righted" in their mind.

and maybe what rights them in their mind includes an ‘apology’

To me... if you're going to bother doing that, have the guts to go all-in-- cut them off entirely, no ifs, ands, or buts. Don't wait for the apology, just move on.

one can do that and still keep the door open to return once the conditions have been met

 

[DEFCON 1]

and maybe what rights them in their mind includes an ‘apology’

one can do that and still keep the door open to return once the conditions have been met

Then don't wait for the apology or demand the apology. Go on with your life and never reference WotC again. Because otherwise it just looks like a person is being wishy-washy... desperately poking at WotC to get them to "do good" enough times just so they can go back to happily buying stuff from them again with their conscience clear.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'll be honest... I'll never get the whole "they need to rebuild trust with me" thing. Because what does trust actually get me? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

To me... a company releases a product. I either want it and thus buy it... or I don't. How I feel about the company doesn't play into it. Even if two companies release similar products, I'll choose the one I want more... and I never give or take "trust" into account. Trust is something I worry about or build when it is a lasting relationship I'm going to have... but a singular purchase isn't that. It's a one-time deal. So I either do the deal or I don't and that's the end of it. But that's just me.

For me, it's a little more complicated.

On one hand, I agree with you: the company doesn't owe me anything, personally. I don't require specific treatment or behavior on a personal level...but I have to carefully acknowledge my own privilege in this matter. I am a white, cis-het, middle-aged, American man. I don't need them to work harder, put in more effort, and go above and beyond to reach me as a customer--I'm their default customer. (I'm everyone's default customer, in this country.) You close your eyes and try to imagine a "D&D player," the image you summon will look a lot like me. They don't owe me anything.

But on the other hand, there are a lot of gamers whom they DO owe more effort. There are lots of marginalized people who are--and have been for years-- excluded (or outright abused) in this hobby, and as the flagship RPG company, Wizards of the Coast owes them far more than an "oops, sorry." There are environmental practices that need to be stopped, by all corporations across the world, if we want to mitigate the climate catastrophe--and as the flagship RPG company, Wizards of the Coast needs to lead the industry away from AI, NFTs, and other environmentally-irresponsible behaviors. There are other issues as well (the way they manage their labor, pay their artists and writers, etc.) but you get the idea. These are the areas where they, as the industry leader, need to step up and lead the whole industry. That is where we customers need to leverage our privilege.

I don't give an airborne coitus about photos getting posted on YouTube, and I couldn't care less about what is/is not going to be in the SRD or the 2024 revision. But if they start using AI instead of paying their artists and writers, or if they pivot to NFTs or other financial foolishness, or if they start busting unions, or if they start blowing bigoted dogwhistles on social media, I'll walk.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[KYRON45]

My issue with this whole OGL situation is that every single conversation regardless of topic comes down to; profits bad, corporate overlords bad, I hate Wotc.
If i started a thread about how to make kobold soup*; someone would turn it into the same corporate profits suck diatribe.
Every time conversations digress into anti Wotc sentiment you aren't hurting Wotc in any way...you are dividing the community.

*the soup kobolds eat, not soup made from kobolds.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't give an airborne coitus about photos getting posted on YouTube, and I couldn't care less about what is/is not going to be in the SRD or the 2024 revision. But if they start using AI instead of paying their artists and writers, or if they pivot to NFTs or other financial foolishness, or if they start busting unions, or if they start blowing bigoted dogwhistles on social media, I'll walk.

Yeah, I don't have anything against anyone choosing or not choosing who they wish to interact with in whatever manner they choose. I probably wouldn't necessarily agree with their reasoning and thus would not follow along with them in their choices... but so what? So I don't agree with them. That doesn't impact them (nor should it), so my disagreement is meaningless to them as much as their actions are meaningless to me.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yeah, I don't have anything against anyone choosing or not choosing who they wish to interact with in whatever manner they choose. I probably wouldn't necessarily agree with their reasoning and thus would not follow along with them in their choices... but so what? So I don't agree with them. That doesn't impact them (nor should it), so my disagreement is meaningless to them as much as their actions are meaningless to me.

Yep, 100%. The trouble is that some people drop those last two words.

Actions that are meaningless to me can severely impact others. So I agree with everything you wrote, so long as (1) everyone gets to make the choices you describe in the first sentence, and (2) we all understand that their actions will affect different people in different ways. I'm sure you've seen plenty of examples.

Anyway, I'll stop beating this drum. Thanks for opening the discussion; this is important stuff to reflect on.