Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 5575705" data-attributes="member: 1254">I sent a letter to Scott at Wizards in about September of the year before (2007). It predicted many of the coming problems. Unfortunately, I only have a saved draft of the letter (and the file date on the file is 9/9/07). This is not the final letter. But it is of historical value, so I post it here (again, for the first time anywhere):Scott,I appreciate you talking with me the other day. I am very much looking forward to 4e and to helping transitioning our fans to 4e.I know you have an internal meeting coming up soon to discuss a number of issues regarding licensing and content and third party publishers. I have been thinking about what we talked about, and I have some thoughts and a proposal that come down to this: Let me help you.My guess is that you guys are getting ready for the 4e launch and are firmly focused on getting to your “pencils down” date which I am guessing is about the end of the year so that you can make print deadlines, etc. Getting content to third parties and dealing with the legal ramifications of licenses, etc, is probably not the highest thing on your list of things to deal with right now. Or even if you did have time, my guess is that your group’s time would be better spent elsewhere.I have a very unique experience with the licenses and the history of getting said content to third party publishers. So I hope I have some valuable things to offer.Here are some bullet points that show what I mean and what I can do for you. Please pardon me if I repeat things that are obvious to you. I’m just trying to work it through.•    There is significant resistance to 3e to 4e.My sense from our discussion is that you understand this and it is important to you. I would hate to see the player base of the game fragment.•    Third party publishers can help transition that significant group.Luckily, respected third party publishers can help you reach people who may be on the fence. Guys like XXXXX [no need to drag others into this -Clark] and I have a good deal of impact with our audiences. I have been out there saying we are going to embrace 4e so long as Wizards allows it. And that stance can change people’s minds or influence “4e rejectors”. In a weird way, third party publishers have the “street cred” that Wizards may not be able to have simply because we are not Wizards, if you see what I mean. If Necro adopts 4e, then it is ok for this group of gamers to adopt 4e. And that is what they are saying. Our boards went from “no way we are doing 4e” to “well, I’ll wait and see” or “if NG does it, I will too” within a short time of me saying we were going 4e. The good third party publishers can help you.•    You need to get content out to their party publishers by the end of the month so we can support launch with viable products.The market is not the same now as it was at launch of 3e when a 32-page adventure was a viable d20 product. And, just like you likely need a “pencil down” date of the end of the year to meet launch, so do we. Our products are larger. Most of us ship out our printing to China or out of the states. We can’t get this stuff in December and make a launch in May-June. We have to have this by the end of this month.Don’t force publishers to make the choice between waiting for the 4e playtest rules which by definition means we will only be able to make 32-page products for launch OR rejecting 4e and keeping on with our current products. Forcing that choice means more people will choose to reject 4e and support 3.5. How many, I don’t know. But it is being discussed right now.•    Delay in acting may lead to publishers staying with 3e and not supporting 4eBy not getting us content early, you may be forcing the hands of some companies to stay with 3.5. Because most companies simply can’t deal with the delay and lag time or simply can’t delay product schedules that far. This short time frame is a real problem.•    It doesn’t need to be perfect.It doesn't matter what state the current rules documents are in. They aren’t final, we understand that. We can all deal with that and we don’t care. We can’t simply create products and then jam the new stuff in when we get it in December. But we can create with draft rules and then make changes to products made using those draft rules in December. That is workable.•    We will accept any restrictions you want to place on it.I helped make the original Creature Collection that beat WotC's MM to press. Though everyone denies it, I have always wondered if there was some lingering animosity from that. Ryan says no. All the people from that time frame say no. But they are gone, mostly. If you want to tell us: "dont do that this time," we would all agree to that I am sure. Whatever limits you want on our product creation, thats fine.•    It can be informal, that is how we did it before.Let history be your guide. Prior to 3e launch, we got draft rules. We had a good lead time. We got revised versions when the actual rules went to print. We all handled it fine. It was all done informally and by an email (which, strangely enough, was from Ryan to me). That email became known as the "gentleperson's agreement." And it was honored by everyone.•    Leave the license issues for later, after your “pencil down” date.Maybe I am wrong, but I get the sense that Wizards is intertwining the decision of getting the content to third party publishers with the issue of how to license the use of said content. Don’t join those. Getting the content out doesn’t mean you have finalized what we can do with the stuff. Don’t let those decisions slow down getting content to your third party publishers. Get us the content. Then we can figure out what to do with it once you are past the pencil down date for 4e.•    Trust the publishers.Like I said, we have all done this before informally and with a handshake. It worked out fine. And you know who you can trust. You know the people and companies who have been good caretakers of the content, who have been helpful, who have tried to give instead of just take, and who actually cared about D&D and Open Gaming.•    Do it like we did before—just give us a short list of what you don’t want us to use.Give us the draft versions of the rules (not to everyone if you don’t want to, that’s up to you). Give us a list of what you DON’T want us to use. That is what we got from Ryan. “You can use everything from the PHB except don’t refer to the GH gods, or X or Y or Z” or whatever it was he said. It was a list of a few things. I can dig the email up if you want to see it.•    Solution: Let me do it.I will do it for you if you want. If the problem is the time crunch of getting this done while dedicating all efforts to finalizing 4e, let me step up and take it off your plate. Forward me your normal NDA so I can see what it covers. I will craft a short addendum to your normal NDA stating that these draft rules are provided to potential third-party publishers. Providing this content for your review is no guarantee that you will subsequently be allowed to use it, or, if allowed to use it, what the terms and scope of that use will be. In agreeing to receive these draft rules you agree not to distribute, etc.Heck, whether you want me to or not I am going to do it for you anyway and send you my draft. I want to make it easy for you to get this stuff out to us.ClarkPS: I do have some licensing issues in case you wanted to address them. But my priority is to get the rules content to us asap.Don’t make use of the d20 STL conditioned on a fee (or don’t make that the only barrier to entry).[edited by Clark to protect the guilty, don't ask]. ‘Nuff said. You don’t have to say it. I said it.Don’t try to resurrect the d20 logo as a quality brand, that isn’t what it has come to mean.d20 is a valuable logo—but to you, not to us. Let d20 mean “dominant rule system,” which is what it means. Don’t try to revive it as a mark of quality. The reason people moved away from the logo was because of the d20 STL, which had restrictions. Just let the d20 STL be what it is.Allow use of the phrase “Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons”Let us do this. Seriously. Just like the old Judges Guild products. It’s not an endorsement. It’s not a loss of your IP. We would all have to say “D&D is a registered trademark of WotC, used by permission, its use is not a challenge…blah blah blah.” It’s real simple language, done all the time.Let us refer to the titles of new books and item/class/race/spell etc. names from that bookOne of the problems with the current license is that it didn’t let us help you sell books other than the core rules. Big mistake. Though I never used it, I actually got permission from Wizards to refer to some of the splat books and their feats and spells, such as “Erithrax, Wiz5/Druid5/Vermin Lord 4*; [rest of stats] *The Vermin Lord is detailed in the Book of Vile Darkness”. Just a simple reference like that would be great. It would help us help you sell those books and it opens up all this killer content for us that we want to use. Because, while some might not want to admit it, Wizards has been making some really, really great stuff recently.Don’t worry about perceived fairness about how you deal with the license issues.You are Wizards. You will always be blamed for something. Not opening up enough. Too many restrictions. Playing favorites when you aren’t. In my view, you shouldn’t worry about this. In my view, your only focus should be “how do we create the right pool of third party companies that will help support and enliven 4e at launch and for the sustainable future, and transition people from 3e to 4e.”Please let me help you with this.</blockquote>

Verification