Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[mxyzplk]

Here we've come full circle. In my original post I said "Folks who say 'get over it' and 'play what D&D you like' certainly have a point" because that's all you're really in a position to do. I don't expect anything more, really. Okay! Message received! Thanks for listening and stopping to reply to me...but - and this is key - when the public face of Wizards of the Coast says "it's all D&D" and he absolutely has the pull with the company as the brand manager to say "hey you know what, if I'm going to go out there with with a 'let's all play under the big tent message' maybe we can actually, you know, make it a big tent" and won't, or won't indicate that they can or ever will, then "it's all D&D" from the offices of WotC is hollow and cynical.

This. Mearls isn't "some internet guy," he's the main representative of WotC's D&D interests. If WotC really does believe this, they can put their money where their mouth is. But you don't wipe away a history of hostile behavior with a "Can't we all just get along" speech. From the GSL poison pill to pulling licenses to pulling PDFs to the advertising to not allowing the RPGA to play the older games... Every actual action WotC has taken is inimical to people who want to play older eds. So yes, many people consider it to be an insult to their intelligence when they get told "We are all one big family, aren't we?" Well, to use the family analogy, you're the one who threw us out of the house, and now you're shocked we are bitter?

Maybe this is indicative of a sea change at WotC and they really do believe it. The way to prove that is to actually DO SOMETHING that would help prove it. Do I trust Mike Mearls the person? Sure, don't have any reason not to. Do I trust the WotC spokesman? No, of course not, and frankly after the last three years it's an unreasonable expectation that everyone would. They have lost much credibility, at least with the people outside the 4e tent, and have to understand that they need to rebuild it. And to rebuild it, they'll have to make meaningful change. Let's hope that actually happens.

Till then, it's just his mouth writing a check his ass can't cash.

 

[pemerton]

In my original post I said "Folks who say 'get over it' and 'play what D&D you like' certainly have a point" because that's all you're really in a position to do. I don't expect anything more, really. Okay! Message received! Thanks for listening and stopping to reply to me...but - and this is key - when the public face of Wizards of the Coast says "it's all D&D" and he absolutely has the pull with the company as the brand manager to say "hey you know what, if I'm going to go out there with with a 'let's all play under the big tent message' maybe we can actually, you know, make it a big tent" and won't, or won't indicate that they can or ever will, then "it's all D&D" from the offices of WotC is hollow and cynical.

And that's what I'm saying.

YOU telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D, player to player, that's one matter. HIM telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D and then not backing it up, that's onerous. WotC denied themselves money and made it more appealing to people to pirate their stuff. How dumb was that?

DungeonDelver, this makes sense to me.

I'm not sure about the "WotC denying themselves money" part. They're a business. They do things to make money. I assume that someone in the business has therefore formed the view that not making old PDFs available is a better way to make money. I don't know what their reasoning is, although I would speculate that it has something to do with concerns about brand dilution or other forms of (what they would see as) miscommunication that ultimately might undermine 4e sales/growth. I do know that I'm not really in a position to second-guess a reason that I'm not even sure about.

But the contrast you draw between commuications among fans and communications from the writer/seller/IP holder - that makes absolute sense!

 

[pemerton]

From the GSL poison pill to pulling licenses to pulling PDFs to the advertising to not allowing the RPGA to play the older games... Every actual action WotC has taken is inimical to people who want to play older eds.

<snip>

They have lost much credibility, at least with the people outside the 4e tent, and have to understand that they need to rebuild it.

This, on the other hand, I can't really get behind. Whereas the Dungeon Delver's response turns precisely on the contrast between a personal communication and a communication from the representative of a commercial entity, this response seems not to appreciate that difference.

In particular, what is this "credibility" thing? I've played games (ICE games, to be precise) where whole lines have gone out of sale and support because an IP holder (Tolkien Enterprises) severed its connection to the company. Does this mean that Tolkien Enterprises has "lost credibility" with me and I boycott Peter Jackson's movies? No. It's a commercial entity making commercial decisions. This is the reality of an environment where the materials with which we entertain ourselves are privatised and commodified.

WotC, in building in the so-called "poison pill", and in its dealings with the PDFs, and in placing restrictions on the RPGA - it's inhouse gaming club - is simply making commercial decisions about how to best make use of its primary asset, namely, its IP. WotC is under no greater moral obligation, in my view, to make its IP available via a more generous GSL, or via online PDFs, or via a more liberal policy with the RPGA, than is Tolkien Enterprises to make its IP available to ICE for producing MERP RPGs and ME:TW CCGs.

It might be disappointing that a form of entertainment that once was available now is not. But painting this as akin to a moral failing on the part of WotC, when WotC is under no moral duty (that I'm aware of) to deal with its IP in anything other than a commercial fashion, just doesn't work for me.

As for WotC's need to "rebuild credibility" - the somewhat ironic thing here is that the only reason they would have for doing so is the commercial benefit that might accrue to them from making new sales to old fans. It seems strange to me that some people would take a sort of moral or personal validation from what would, in fact, be merely a commercial decision, driven by exactly the same considerations as drove the decisions to which the same people earlier objected. It wouldn't be as if WotC (or its designers) had actually formed a different view, for example, about the merits of one form of D&D over another.

More bluntly - why would an individual care about the opinion that some commercial entity - be it WotC or whomever else - has of that individual's hobbies and passtimes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pemerton,

As I read it, the response you can't get behind is pointing out that the blog post is profoundly hypocritical, unless WotC takes action to back it up. Want us to accept the "big tent/All Roads" theory of D&D? Back it up by making that tent/those roads available.

Failing that, don't tell us you're "big tent" kinds of guys.

WotC can't have it both ways.

It is as simple as that.


RC

 

[Mercurius]

For the sake of this reply, I'll stick to verdana.

this time

LOL. Thanks - and sorry to cramp your style.

I don't agree with the tone of what Mr. Mearls is saying in his article.

Fair enough. I get that you're pissed about the PDFs - as I've said, I think it was (and still is) a dumb move on WotC's part.

That said, I'm not sure that I would directly link Mearls' article with the PDF Debacle. I mean, I get that he's an integral part of WotC, but to link his article with the PDF Debacle is to essentially say that everything WotC does is Pure Evil, is worthy of distrust and is disingenuous - all because of the PDF Debacle - and that anything that anyone working at WotC says is inherently disingenuous...because of the PDF Debacle.

Let's say your good friend cheats on his girlfriend. Does that mean that anything he says after that point about relationships is inherently suspect? Not necessarily. Now of course with WotC it wasn't just the one isolated incident - there was the monstrous GSL, for example, and the pulling of recent products, and the lack of communication going forward, and the DDI trainwreck, etc. At the very least I think it is safe to say that WotC's PR sucks; at worst, they are only interested in making money and are completely dishonest corporate shills. I'll take the middle ground somewhere in between, probably closer to the "at the very least" side. I take it that you are closer to the "at worst" side?

My sense is that WotC really has no idea what they're doing. They're floundering. All they know is that they aren't pleasing fans, the D&D fan-base is fractured and they've probably lost a ton of folks to Paizo for good. 4E is not nearly as possible as they had hoped it would be and they don't know how to fix it. In other words, they blew it - and it isn't just because a lot of folks didn't (and don't) like 4E; that's about half of it; the other half is all of the bad PR stuff.

I stilldon't see their advertising as being as mean-spirited as you say it was. I can't remember seeing all of it, but to me it sounded rather tongue-in-cheek.

As for the onerousness of Mearls writing this piece, I am simply not in a place where I can make a strong judgment either way. I (and presumably you) don't know what goes on in the offices at WotC. For all we know things are tense; there might be different camps within the company, folks that want to offer the PDFs again and abolish the GSL, and folks that care only about pleasing Hasbro and only look at the bottom line.

Who knows? I don't, which is why I'm not going to assume that Mike Mearls is a total slimeball and I'm going to take the sentiment of his article at face value and say "Nice article, I agree" while at the same time recognizing that WotC has and continues to make terrible errors in judgment and that I would do things very differently.

 

[Mercurius]

Want us to accept the "big tent/All Roads" theory of D&D? Back it up by making that tent/those roads available.

Done.

Failing that, don't tell us you're "big tent" kinds of guys.

WotC can't have it both ways.

It is as simple as that.

Seriously though, I can agree with this. I guess I just don't find it all that offensive, or no more offensive than what any other company does. And I also don't think that Mike Mearls can be held responsible for every decision that WotC has made. Bill Slaviscek? I would think he bears a bit more of the responsibility on his shoulders.

I guess I just wouldn't be cut out to be a business man because I would employ "big tent" business practices and maybe lose money for it, or at least not be as profitable as I could be. At least that seems to be the conclusion that most companies come to, which is really too bad.

I personally think this is a fallacy that the vast majority of companies make. I have seen some companies take the high road and really put their customers first and their customers reward them for it. It doesn't seem that WotC has followed that approach, though.

 

[Mark CMG]

That said, I'm not sure that I would directly link Mearls' article with the PDF Debacle. I mean, I get that he's an integral part of WotC, but to link his article with the PDF Debacle is to essentially say that everything WotC does is Pure Evil, is worthy of distrust and is disingenuous - all because of the PDF Debacle - and that anything that anyone working at WotC says is inherently disingenuous...because of the PDF Debacle.

That's essentially the same in your eyes?

 

[Mercurius]

That's essentially the same in your eyes?

No, not really - or rather, in a manner of speaking. But my point is that we can't link everything to the PDF Debacle. I mean, this is classic human psychology. Let's say you are pissed at your spouse for doing something cruel to you and you have a hard time getting over it. Years go by and you are often mad at him or her and don't trust anything they say. But what you are mad about isn't necessarily what they are saying or doing now but what they did a few years ago.

Now as I said, WotC continues their string of PR blunders, so it isn't just the PDF Debacle. But again, I just don't like the idea of linking two things (Mearls' article and the PDF Debacle) that aren't directly related. I think we can take what he said in the article at face value, that it is probably how he actually feels, but also recognize that there are business considerations that he may or may not be responsibility for (to whatever degree).

 

[Mark CMG]

No, not really - or rather, in a manner of speaking. But my point is that we can't link everything to the PDF Debacle.

Since that isn't what is happening here, I'll just note that the list of logical fallacies you are using to argue with people in this thread is gettng longer.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'll say this,

This would be a MUCH more positive thread and WotC would have taken a big step forward if the article had been exactly the same, but at the end they had added:

"and that's why we're..."

1. resuming availability of pdfs.
2. expanding the GSL
3. announcing the return to Dungeon and Dragon in print, from PAIZO (still 4e)
4. Releasing a small series of brand new prior edition material.
5. any other action that actually supported the statement being made.



EDIT: I hope someone at WotC reads this thread and it helps them to understand the viewpoint/perspective fans currently have of the company, as well as how the actions of the company in the past few years have shaped that viewpoint/perspective. Sadly, I suspect that their current M.O. interpreting fan viewpoints/perspectives is "it's all nerd rage" and "we can't do anything right, someone will always be mad at us."

Maybe someone would be....but, as said earlier, better behavior and PR wouldn't have a 26 page discussion involving more than just a single someone. What they've been doing has made several "someones" mad...and they could realy improve the numbers with some better PR and policy.