A nice followup to Chris Dias' letter to WotC

[Vigilance]

Incorrect! They actually boosted one company in the Monster Manual II.

Being able to find three examples in ten years sort of proves my point (I'm calling MMII, Unearthed Arcana, and Call of Cthulhu d20 as examples).

They were not interested in highlighting 3PP's. Which is fine, I don't blame them for that. It's just a fact.

Yes, there were occasional experiments, such as Unearthed Arcana.

But there was never any sort of concerted effort to boost any 3rd party writers or companies.

Not only that, but on the rare occasions when they did use 3rd party content, it was almost always ex-WOTC staffers.

Sorry, I don't really consider including work by Stan! and Monte Cook to be some big nod to the 3PP community.

A nod to the 3PP community would be, say, a feature article on Mike Mearls written back in his early freelancer days, before he had been hired by Monte Cook or WOTC.

Or a blurb about ENWorld.

You know, the sort of stuff Polyhedron was doing.

 

[pawsplay]

Being able to find three examples in ten years sort of proves my point (I'm calling MMII, Unearthed Arcana, and Call of Cthulhu d20 as examples).

I thought your point was that they didn't do it.

 

[darjr]

You're arguing a point I never made. Paizo can act as welcoming as possible and pretend they are doing some great service; when the fact remains that they are not doing any service. They can't stop anyone from creating content, unless someone is creating content that is specific to one of the Pathfinder/Golarion products.

I totally disagree. Sure they can't stop people using OGL stuff. However I think they have put stuff into the open, that's doing a service. They have highlighted and promoted 3pp's on their own web site, that's a service. They have reached out to 3pp's and even, I think, publicly discussed about what they are working on so that they don't step on each others toes.

 

[Vigilance]

I thought your point was that they didn't do it.

They did no do "it".

They used Open Content twice in two years, almost all of it written by ex-WOTC staffers and published some books written by Monte Cook after he became a 3PP.

Now let's look specifically at the things mentioned in the original open letter, did they:

• Talk About Us
• Support Us
• Reward Us
• Sell Us
• Distribute Us
• Talk to Us

I would say the answer is No, No, No, No, No and Yes (Ryan Dancey talked to 3PP directly but that ended when he left the company as I recall).

So to sum up, when WOTC was friendlier to 3PP than they are now, and had a VERY generous license, they did one of the things Dias asked for in his letter, thus, I call his letter naive/misinformed.

You took my statement that Dias' letter was naive, moved the bar to any isolated instances of "boosting" 3PP (whatever that means) and claimed I was mistaken.

So yes, I think Dias' letter is naive. I don't say that to be mean, or even claim that he's wrong.

It just seems naive to think that in the days of the GSL, a license most publishers aren't even willing to use, that WOTC would be more supportive of 3PP's than they were in the days of OGL, even in the Dancey-era OGL, which is the closest WOTC ever came to actively engaging the community.

By contrast, Paizo DOES have a history of doing this sort of thing. When they took over Polyhedron, they focused on the OGL community.

I'm not saying one approach or the other is "wrong". My opinion of the two different histories of WOTC and Paizo doesn't change that history.

 

[gamerprinter]

Given that Mike Mearls has responded to folks on these forums, and on therpgsite, I assume he and other WOTC staffers *do* read them, yes.

But that doesn't mean they have unlimited freedom to enact policy, especially one that runs 180 degrees in the direction of what seems to be their established policy of the moment.

How is it 180 degrees? The GSL does exist, which allows for 3pps creating content for 4e. If WotC didn't want this, they didn't have to create the GSL at all. Your implied company policy statement is counter to the existence of the GSL.

Now genuinely, Chris is making the point is that "Even with the GSL, is it just some hand-waving to indicate WotC wanting to say they support 3pp's when they really don't based on how uncommunicative and unsupportive they truly are to their 3pp's?" I think it's a worthy argument.

How is not supporting their 3pps, which help get market penetration with no cost to WotC oppositie to established policy? That's just a silly statement.

It makes good business sense to follow Chris's suggestions. Is it WotC's goal not to use good business sense?

GP

 

[xechnao]

Ironically, since last September Wotc has only rolled out Essentials on the shelves and so it seems this to have been the most opportune time for a 3pp to promote product on the shelves.

But alas, nothing of this sort.

 

[IronWolf]

Paizo can act as welcoming as possible and pretend they are doing some great service; when the fact remains that they are not doing any service. They can't stop anyone from creating content, unless someone is creating content that is specific to one of the Pathfinder/Golarion products.

While that may be correct the attitude they take in doing so is marvelous. Even when people are required by license to do something the attitude with which they do so can be a factor.

They put their content in their own online SRD, they readily answer questions on their forums on such issues and work with folks in using their material. It is much more a spirit of cooperation than doing so begrudgingly whether the license requires it or not.

 

[carmachu]

Anyone thats followed the GSL/OGL license release before 4e came out, that wasnt a cheerleader could tell WOTC does NOT want 3rd party products with 4e. From the GSL's orginal relase, to its slow division, to wotc's delay in handing out the GSL to 3rd parties.

They dont want other folks in their playground in 4e.

 

[GreyLord]

Anyone ever consider that maybe Hasbro has another gameplan for WotC than what WotC has for itself?

As long as we are discussing wild crazy and insane thoughts, maybe Hasbro has wanted D&D dead since it bought the brand with 3e out there instead of AD&D. So, since 3.5 wasn't a wild enough change to kill it, they went even more drastic in change. WotC is simply trying to make ends meet, and make a good game...without knowing the ultimate aims of Hasbro.

As long as WotC continues to make money for Hasbro they remain, but there will come a time when it doesn't and Hasbro can shut down the D&D license for a time only to ressurect it when the time is right...or contract it out for MORE money then heck.

GI Joe, Transformers, and other products of nostalgia seem to come back with a force to be reckoned with when the time is right...and a hiatus gives nice sales later on, especially after a brand has been dying for a while.

Not that this is true to any term...but proceding in such a way as to kill a brand may actually be a business move that no one has really considered. If it's doing to well...force another tactic that will kill it some more...OR force it in a route to completely revolutionize the industry and change the way people view RPGs...making money that way.

Not that it's the truth or anything...but has anyone ever considered that perhaps ensuring D&D as the top selling brand is NOT Hasbro's goal? (though I imagine it is WotC's goal).

PS: On the whether WotC people monitor the forums or not...I'd say they do, but I imagine they either post under Pseudonyms, or refrain from posting most of the time, especially if they don't have any real reason to post in the first place.

 

[pawsplay]

You took my statement that Dias' letter was naive, moved the bar to any isolated instances of "boosting" 3PP (whatever that means) and claimed I was mistaken.

I think it's worthwhile, when talking about contentious matters, not to ignore inconvenient facts. If you want to nuance, nuance away, but I don't think there is justification in saying Wotc "basically" didn't, when they literally, did. Say they didn't do it very much, or something. It doesn't sound as dramatic, of course... which is a good thing.