First 3rd Party Product available already...

[Jack99]

Huh? Darrin's comment is spot on. Far more inexperienced pubs are going to jump in feet first than the experienced ones.

And you didn't answer the burning question: why is this precisely not the kind of product you don't want to see with the D&D logo on it?

I didn't answer the "burning" question, because I originally had written a much longer reply to Darrin. I then realized it was unnecessarily confrontational and would at best get me a serious warning from the mods. So I changed it a few times, and ended up with merely saying that I think Darren is wrong, regarding what we can expect. I pressed *post* and went to bathe and put my daughter to sleep. So I never saw there was several posts that had appeared while I was changing my post.

Anyway. My reaction to this guy's work, aside that the encounter reads like a boring one (20 minions could be okay, but in order to create fun and excitement, the setup would need to be different - although if you use the appropriate scaling, it helps a little bit) comes from the way I am "reading" WoTC.

This could of course be totally wrong, but I do think that WotC want the shiny stuff, they want DND to look good, not like some of the lesser 3rd party products in 3.x. Now, I am not saying they are going about getting to their goal in the right way, but I do think it is one thing they want. That's why I do think (and hope) they will vet the applicants for the license, so that we won't see stuff like the encounter linked. Stuff that looks pretty much thrown together in 10 minutes.

 

[Vanuslux]

The license/contract administrator has a "Received" date stamp just for this purpose.

We'll only contact a company if we choose to decline the offer of the license.

So...you don't give them any kind of proof of acceptance? That's a little unsettling since that basically means that if WotC wanted to really bork a company, it could claim that it never received the form and the company was in violation the whole time.

Not that I think WotC would do that...just stuff like that makes me nervous since I returned a HDTV to a rental center, wasn't given any paperwork, and then two days later was told according to them it hadn't been returned. Fortunately, this was cleared up when the TV was found on a truck that had been impounded because the employee was arrested, but it's made me a lot more strict about making sure I "have it in writing".

 

[The Little Raven]

Yeah, and I kind of pity that sort of fear. I mean, what's the worst that could happen if you pick up some random $20 3rd party adventure? You waste $20? OH NOES! NOT $20! Now I won't be able to get JUMBO POPPING CORN at my MOVIE HOUSE! Perhaps I won't be able to afford WITTY T-SHIRT WITH A POPULAR PHRASE ON IT!

Not everyone can just throw money away on crap products like you can, so maybe you shouldn't be such a jerk about other people's spending decisions.

...not to mention the debatable proposition of "a good track record for successful products."

You'll note that I said that some people believe that, not a declaration of objective fact.

This is the company that missed the BAB on the halfling outrider and invented the mercurial greatsword and put out the entirely lackluster Arms and Equipment Guide for 3e and created Pun-pun, and...well...let's just say I'm not sure they're any better just by virtue of their name.

And I've seen "quality" d20 companies put out crap, much of it reprinted wholesale from the SRD.

Well, for one, it's not in vogue to hate on WotC.

Could have fooled me, especially with how long the "Don't Like 4th Edition?" thread (totally an edition war thread) lasted after the "no edition wars" post.

I'm hating a bit on the people who enshrine their love of WotC as some sort of sacred high ground, but they kind of deserve it, no?

You're just being a jerk to people who have different taste and make different spending decisions than you. Normally, I think you're a pretty reasonable guy, even if we disagree, but right now you're just acting like a troll.

 

[The Little Raven]

The license/contract administrator has a "Received" date stamp just for this purpose.

How is the publisher to know what date is on the Received stamp, if you don't contact them to let them know? It seems that processing delays, or simply falling between the cracks, could make a publisher in violation of the GSL with no way of knowing, since there is no confirmation to the publisher.

 

[Vanuslux]

Yeah, and I kind of pity that sort of fear. I mean, what's the worst that could happen if you pick up some random $20 3rd party adventure? You waste $20? OH NOES! NOT $20! Now I won't be able to get JUMBO POPPING CORN at my MOVIE HOUSE! Perhaps I won't be able to afford WITTY T-SHIRT WITH A POPULAR PHRASE ON IT!

$20 dollars is four hours of hard labor for a day laborer like me. It's not something I can spend lightly.

Edit: That said, there have been many times I've thought a third party product was a better value than a WotC product. Green Ronin's Book of Fiends comes to mind as a critical part of my 3.x campaigns.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

So...you don't give them any kind of proof of acceptance? That's a little unsettling since that basically means that if WotC wanted to really bork a company, it could claim that it never received the form and the company was in violation the whole time.

If they're that concerned about it, they can ask for proof of delivery from the Post Office, or FedEx it, etc. That's not that tough of an issue to overcome.

 

[hexgrid]

The brand loyalty that D&D inspires is bizarre and, to my mind, more than a little bordering on religious fanaticism. I've heard a lot of excuses for not going to 3rd parties (production values, "rules balance," whatever), and most of them are kind of weak.

I've heard people claim that they ONLY use WotC products as if they are proud of that fact, as if it makes them pure and elite.

I kind of pity those people the same way I pity, say, agoraphobes, or people who have never been outside of their home nation.

It's ridiculous to think that a decision to not buy an RPG accessory product needs to be justified at all. It doesn't work that way, unless your support of 3rd party material borders on religious fanaticism.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Blink and ya missed it! He pulled it already. I give the odds at 50-50 this is the last product we see for 4E from Mr Carbol.

 

[The Little Raven]

If they're that concerned about it, they can ask for proof of delivery from the Post Office, or FedEx it, etc. That's not that tough of an issue to overcome.

Confirmation fron USPS or FedEx doesn't count, according to Linae's post. If USPS says that Wizards received my agreement on 2008-07-01, but their Received stamp says 2008-07-13 (because of processing delays, for example), then by putting out my book on 2008-07-15, I am in violation of the GSL because I didn't wait until 2008-07-27 to publish (since Received date is by their stamp, not by USPS's confirmation).

 

[Pinotage]

How is the publisher to know what date is on the Received stamp, if you don't contact them to let them know? It seems that processing delays, or simply falling between the cracks, could make a publisher in violation of the GSL with no way of knowing, since there is no confirmation to the publisher.

I would imagine a day or two of lee-way was more than enough, although in the case of international posting it could be more difficult to judge whether something was 14 days after they'd received it but never told anybody about it. Knowingly jumping the gun by 13 days is another matter which we'll see what WotC does with.

Pinotage