Charles Ryan on Adventures

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I guess I don't see it as unprofessional. I can see how it could disrupt the illusion of a cozy gaming industry, but I think WotC looks at it more from a business standpoint than a strive to be friendly to competitors.

Given the relatively small number of people working professionally in the field, Charles was dismissing the work of former WotC employees, freelancers and future WotC employees.

This is not a_generic_industry, this is an industry with well under 1,000 creative professionals working on a regular basis. Talking crap about the guy who turned in a manuscript to you last week and you've just asked to submit ideas for a book due next year by saying his work that's not bound between WotC covers is both unprofessional and unwise. It's also a pretty crappy way to treat your friends and I have to assume Charles has at least a few of them in the industry.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Thanks for stopping by, Charles.

If you are talking about production values and sales, yeah, few can even compete.

My definition of what makes a product the "best" is rather different, however. Production values are nice, but content, creativity, and utility are king. And I certainly feel that other prublishers put out products that have more than competed in this area, and likewise, WotC has put out some disappointments in this area. Production values are, to me, a secondary consideration. And sales matter not at all. If a good book is in my possession, it does not matter how many other people bought it.

I am intrigued by new titles coming down the pipe, however, and am pleased to see WotC dipping into some of the talent that the third parties have produced. I think that the great "big name diaspora" of WotC hurt their product line more than they admit, and like to think pulling in more authors represents a sort of return to greatness.

/agree

 

[Maggan]

For example, comb through reviews of WotC products and note that proofreading errors, from text to stat blocks, are a frequent complaint among reviewers, a trend that suggests editing as a "production value" is lacking in many WotC books.

I checked John Coopers reviews, because he always seems to find the mistakes in each book. All in all, 3rd party publishers seem to have their share of the same problem.

Based on that unscientific sample, I would say 3rd party production values are equally lacking, it's just that WotC is scrutinised harder and more often. I'd say they are at least as good as many of their competitors*.

Saying "I think we are the best" is not saying "we are perfect". Given that, there could be 3rd party stuff that is of better integrity ruleswise than WotC, but I wouldn't know what it is.

/M

* But of course, one could make the claim that they should be better than their competitors, since it is their own system.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But of course, one could make the claim that they should be better than their competitors, since it is their own system.

And they have the economic advantages Charles cited. If anyone can afford to hire both copy editors and rules/stats editors, it should be them.

They're not alone in this, though. White Wolf famously has the exact same problem. Worse, in fact. (See page XX for details.)

 

[Maggan]

It's also a pretty crappy way to treat your friends and I have to assume Charles has at least a few of them in the industry.

I would assume so too, and I would be surprised if they are outraged by him saying this. Some might be outraged, but then again, I think he has a few ... not-friends ... in the industry as well. Everyone has.

FWIW, I work in the industry from time to time, and I don't take offense at what Charles Ryan said. Because I know that my stuff is the exception to the rule, which is probably what everyone else is saying about their own stuff as well ...

/M

 

[MerricB]

I suspect he meant more that attempting to compete with WotC in its own shtick is bad buisness, not that making adventures is good buisness.

That's mostly my reading of it; although I will add that there *is* a market for adventures, and thus producing adventures (as Necromancer Games has shown) can build a profitable business.

There was a great thread by Clark Peterson somewhere on ENworld about what sort of adventures made Necromancer Games successful.

However, and here's a factor that I don't think Charles Ryan (or Ryan Dancey) took into account, the distribution model RPGs use is heavily weighted against adventures in general, and non-Wizards adventures even more so.

I suspect it was better in the very early days of the d20 System. (Ask Clark about early sales of Rappan Athuk). However, because of the glut of just plain bad product in first days of d20, distributors and retailers were burnt badly by non-Wizards products - and particularly adventures.

The market may now be recovering somewhat, thanks largely to the stable d20 System publishers.

I will say, as an aside, that it is extremely difficult for me to get non-Wizards products. My FLGS doesn't really carry them. Those that *really* attract my attention, I can get, but mostly I am restricted to Wizards products. What helps greatly is that I love what Wizards make. I am not alone in these buying patterns, although I sometimes feel that way on ENworld.

Returning to Charles' comments, and setting aside his belief that Wizards' products have better content (debatable at the best of times), there's some rather good advice there.

Quite frankly, if Wizards puts out a book like Complete Warrior, how could a publisher compete by putting out a book like "The Essential Fighter"? They need an edge. Wizards has a distinct advantage in the combination of production values and lower (relative) production costs on bigger books. Economies of scale and all that.

"Better content" is so much a problematical scale. There are books that are so bad that it's obvious, but you're very rarely going to get a Wizards' book like that. At the level at which you're competing, we should assume that content isn't going to be a deciding factor. The official status of Wizards' D&D products hold more weight for the majority of consumers. Yes, you'll get some people who'll support you, but will it be enough?

Being first tends to help. (See the Creature Collection). I've a feeling the Quintessential books of Mongoose also fall into this category, and once they had the initial surge, they could continue with their own branding and popularity.

However, if you can't be first, and you're competing directly with Wizards - not so good. Better to be producting something that doesn't compete directly with the Wizards products.

Once a company is established with a fanbase - and does so by being first, being different from Wizards, or such like - then it is more able to compete directly with Wizards, but you still have the ongoing problem of any directly competing product splitting the buyers, and mostly likely the balance going in Wizards favour.

What are the current successful d20 publishers doing? There seems to be a surge of alternative rule sets and settings at present. What else? In what areas are they different from Wizards, and what areas are they directly competing?

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Worse, in fact. (See page XX for details.)

Amazingly, page XX has turned up in both Fantastic Locations: Fane of the Drow and Sons of Gruumsh. I don't understand it!

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by CharlesRyan
we have the largest, most experienced collection of game-design minds assembled on this planet.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow
Again, not really. It's partly just who happens to work there. After all, several of WotC's brightest ended up elsewhere, and doing very well at those places, no?

Try contesting the "largest" again, please. I want to laugh a bit more.

I think there might be two to four ex-Wizards designers that you could say are doing well in the d20 System business. "Getting by" would describe most of the rest, if that.

It's well worth looking at the names of the freelancers who work for Wizards these days.

I do agree with Psion: the exodus of design staff did hurt Wizards (stupid Pokemon managers), but their recent rebuilding (three or four new hires?) and selection of freelancers is very promising.

Cheers!

 

[Staffan]

For example, comb through reviews of WotC products and note that proofreading errors, from text to stat blocks, are a frequent complaint among reviewers, a trend that suggests editing as a "production value" is lacking in many WotC books.

I think, in many cases, reviewers treat WOTC products more harshly than third-party books (or possibly, it's just that more people buy WOTC books if they only have a slight interest in them, while the people who buy third-party books tend to be more positive toward the book to begin with). For example, one of the most highly regarded recent 3rd-party releases has been Iron Heroes. This despite the fact that even the author himself has said that a big chunk of it, the magic system, is below par - but people still give it a pass and like it (though I couldn't find any reviews of it on the site). Had WOTC made a book and given so little attention to a subsystem that way, people would have been yelling for blood.

 

[GRIMJIM]

I can see some, limited, appeal in 'modules' for the older crowd coming back and without so much time to spend preparing and so on, and D20 is not a game that is particularly easy to run 'on the fly' but adventures always suffer from railroading in a way sourcebooks and adventure seeds don't.

I'm not convinced we're getting a lot of new blood in and more experienced gamers don't need, or necessarily want relatively facile printed adventures IMO.