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

[Umbran]

This thread is now quite thoroughly about WotC business practices. Moving to Industry...

I would like folks to consider how much new ground is being covered here. If you aren't actually exchanging information, you might want to give it a rest, and move on to something that is more constructive and less divisive.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm just trying to offer suggestions of what WotC might be thinking, given that they're acting at least somewhat rationally from their point of view. And the brand dilution/support to competition aspect is the main thing that I can see.

Yes, and I think you are right. They cited piracy as the reason but that just doesn't make sense to me. I remember some poll that was linked to from here that asked people if getting a "free" PDF stopped them from purchasing a hard copy if they liked the product; the response was overwhelming in the negative. I'll take myself as an example. I downloaded the legitimately free Eclipse Phase RPG and scanned through it, realized it was a product that I wanted to buy but didn't need in that moment. A few months later I ordered a hard copy.

My personal opinion is that the best route for offering PDFs is similar to what Paizo does: offer them for much less than the hard copy and if you buy the hard copy from them, you get the PDF free. But the point being, the vast majority of people greatly prefer a hard copy and a PDF is a good way to get a feel for something before you buy it, not unlike scanning through a book in a bookstore.

I would say that keeping their PDFs off the market is, at best, a zero-sum game for WotC. But because the cons relate to goodwill, community, and PR, I would say it veers slightly towards a net loss. But you know how you sometimes like someone better after a fight than if you hadn't had the fight at all? This could also be an opportunity for WotC to come out shining: "We realize our mistakes, we want to be a company for the people, and this is what we're going to do about it..."

Now what they could do about it is another matter, but other than the PDFs I would suggest greater communication with the fans, especially the diehard base that, quite frankly, puts food on their table. This would entail some kind of feedback mechanism where they get info as to what people want, what they like, etc. This would go a long way to making 5E a truly great game that pleases as many people as possible.

It is still a hope that they come back with at least Dragon as a print magazine, but that is sort of swimming upstream at this point given the trends of newspapers and magazines. But Dragon, as far as I know, was always a loss leader so to say that it didn't make any money is to miss the point.

You're misremembering. I can't remember the precise sequence of events, but the whole "early adopter for money" scheme was abandoned as the relevant deadline for availability of the GSL and the draft SRD was missed by WotC.

What I think is more telling about the GSL saga is not that it shows how stingy WotC has become (as I've already posted, and posted back at the time that the GSL thing was happening, it's unrealistic to expect an entertainment company to give away its IP merely out of generosity - and WotC obviously feels commercially burned by the OGL, and so is not inclined to go the OGL+SRD route again). Rather it is an early sign of WotC's inability to come up with a clear strategy in relation to 4e. First they dithered over the GSL, couldn't agree on the best version, and ended up losing the cooperation of at least some 3PP who might have been 4e supporters (Necromancer in particular comes to mind). Then there seems to have been dithering and a lack of clear direction over the DDI, which by all accounts is still continuing (I'm not a subscriber myself). Then there is the dithering and lack of clear direction over the print publications.

Yes, good point - especially the part I put in boldface. This continues to be the problem as the ship is floundering. I would say that a large source of the problem is that at some point they became rather insular and seemed to lose touch with the fan-base, especially us diehards. As Bryon put it, they focused too much on the many "birds in the bush" and neglected the fewer "birds in hand," who are also the folks that spend many times the amount a casual player does.

WotC seem to me to have a good game - 4e - but a great deal of uncertainty about how to get it to sell in sufficient commercial volume.

I agree. I don't think it is a perfect game, but no RPG ever has been or ever will be. But I would argue that much of its major problems and causes of dislikes for at least some people are tonal, the way it has been marketed and the non-traditional elements that have been introduced or emphasized. I would say that there are deeper structural issues that would take a revamp of the game to fix, namely those elements that take many folks out of the story and onto the battlemap. But those in and of themselves don't contribute as much to the hostility currently directed at WotC and 4E.

I would like to hear how keeping old PDFs legally unavailable is helping them grow the D&D brand. Do they want to turn fans of their vintage products into pirates and then sue them out of the hobby?

You first . Seriously - how does offering the old PDFs help WotC sell and grow 4E/DDI?

I think pemerton has addressed your question - especially that it could (at least in WotC's view) negatively impact 4E through dilution and offering material that supports version(s) of the game they are no longer producing, including their main competitors. Now they could take a more radical approach like some have suggested and support both 3.5 and 4E...it is an interesting idea and I don't know how it would turn out, but it seems like it could easily deteriorate into a confused mess.

I personally would like to see them "perfect" DDI as they gradually wind 4E down, offer everything via PDF, create a stronger community through better communication and feedback mechanisms, bring Dragon back into print as an accepted loss leader, and work towards 5E in 2-3 years time. So you'd have something like this:

2011: Fix/develop DDI; experiment with 4E products; work on "healing the rift" in the community (e.g. PDFs). GenCon announcement: The return of Dragon! 5E "alpha" phase begins in earnest - gathering information, feedback, etc.
2012: DDI running at full steam; 4E winding down. GenCon announcement: 5E coming soon!
2013: Open playtest of 5E concepts and rules via DDI and Dragon; 5E's "beta phase." Perhaps even a limited edition "beta box."
2014: 5E comes out to raving accolades.

The point being, with a bit of direction and well-placed strategic moves, WotC could make the coming out party of 5E a truly memorable occasion. The main points in my above timeline being:

*Fix DDI.
*Bring Dragon back.
*Create better lines of communication and feedback loops with the fan base; and perhaps most importantly:
*Let us help them create 5E via playtesting and feedback.

The last point is risky and very difficult in that you can't please everyone, but by getting everyone involved and asking for feedback from those that have been playing for 10,20, 30+ years, not only does it nurture goodwill and community, but it gathers great ideas.

 

[pawsplay]

That's true. But the authors of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail probably didn't invent many of the words in their book either, yet they still had a coherent (if ultimately unsuccessful) suit against Dan Brown.

Which means they are unsuccessful. Also, the soul of a novel is different the soul of what is essentially an instruction manual.

Copyright doesn't reside in the invidual words but in the work, which may be a distinctive concatenation of those individual words. Table design and layout would also count.

Sure. It's also trivial to come up with a new table design and layout. And if your table is in some way alphabetical, that doesn't represent a particular expression of an idea.

I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to have a view as to when copyrightability would emerge, but I don't think it's absurd to imagine that WotC has a prima facie claim to copyright in its equipment tables, and particularly in those tables as an element of a bigger work which is itself distinguished by further unique characteristics.

Consider this. If the table lists a longsword as doing 1d10 damage, it's telling you, "When you hit someone with a longsword, roll a ten-sided die for damage." That idea is not copyrightable, only the specific form of the instructions. If I relay that information in a slightly different format, I am describing a process. Further, if the type of information constrains me to a certain tabular format, the copyright case against me is weak.

Absurdity is not the issue. As long as two texts have some vague relationship with each other, there is a lawsuit to be had. However, many of those lawsuits are doomed.

With the vacuum bags there is no issue of copyright, only trademark.

Which is basically the same issue as a D&D module, as it does not contain verbatim text of say, the AD&D Player's Handbook.

I think that RPG material is somewhat distinctive in combining copyright issues (reproduction of text) with trademark issues (the product, in order to sell, must hang on the coattails of someother product).

That is not an issue distinctive to RPG material. There have been cases about Tarzan, Mighty Mouse, you name it. In fact, there is a whole area of IP law where it is being argued how much control a trademark ownership can exert over a property when the work it is based on has gone into the public domain.

And unlike a hoover bag, from the point of view of WotC it is a product in competition with its sales rather than complementary to them.

That is exactly the same issue, actually. You think Hoover doesn't make bags for their own vacuums? Or, for that matter, do you think you can't make a vacuum cleaner that uses Hoover bags?

Again, I don't know enough about the software issues. My understanding is also that Microsoft is governed by various anti-monopoly considerations, although perhaps I am wrong about that, or at least about its implications for authoring the Windows game.

Okay. Do you think D&D has a similar monopoly status in the RPG market?

Well, the first thing that WotC would do is deny that your module - let alone your OGL+SRD clone - is software for their system at all. They would allege that, so far from being a complementary product, it is a competing product. And that allegation wouldn't be obviously fanciful.

It may not seem that way to some. To me it would be obviously fanciful. If it doesn't use characters and places from a D&D book it's not a derivative work in the literary sense (like an unauthorized sequel). It it doesn't reproduce text, it's not plagiaristic. Do you think a hypothetical Moocow's Player Handbook, creating a D&D 3e simulator is more like...?:

- a game written for a Windows PC
- a vacuum cleaner that uses Hoover bags
- an unofficial strategy guide
- a board game called "Fun-opoly" about acquiring competing popsicle stands
- a novel about a teenaged girl who falls in love with a vampire
- a Wild West roleplaying game which makes reference to Hit Points, Saving Throws, and Feats, but has a different underlying architecture based on rolling 2d6
- A fantasy role-playing game featuring characters of fantasy races like elves, dwarves, and gnomes, who adventure in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world and gain levels by defeating challenges. You know, like Palladium.

While I am completely confident there is a case against someone who puts the words "hit points" to paper, I don't think there's a winning court case against much of what's worth doing in the 3pp world. There's just nothing to win. And that is why it's in everyone's best interests to have an OGL or some other way to create compatible products. If someone from WotC took an index card, wrote a few terms like it like Armor Class and Hit Points, and said, "We release this index card to the public domain," the world would be a happier place. Instead we have the Give Soul License.

The alternative strategy is for WotC to fight with their last breath over every infringement, hoping that in the 21st century, the legal situation will shift in their favor. Given that much of D&D is itself a pastiche of other copyrighted works, I don't give them good odds on that.

 

[pawsplay]

You first . Seriously - how does offering the old PDFs help WotC sell and grow 4E/DDI?

I think pemerton has addressed your question - especially that it could (at least in WotC's view) negatively impact 4E through dilution and offering material that supports version(s) of the game they are no longer producing, including their main competitors.

WotC is not in the business of growing and selling 4e/DDI. They are in the business of making money. 4e is just one means to that end. In fact, it's all but inevitible that at some point, they will switch to 5e. As long as the D&D brand is valuable, it can be used for endeavors such as computer games, movies, cartoons, T-shirts, board games, and what-have-you... many of which are likely more profitable than RPGs, which are a niche.

Keeping the PDFs available keeps the "literary classics" of RPGs alive. As the copyright holders of said classics, WotC has only to gain by remaining current in people's minds even of products written years ago.

Another reason is that it shows old customers won't be "fired." If I were a 4e player, shouldn't I be nervous that WotC happily tossed the 3e game overboard when they were ready for a new product cycle?

It also means there is a legal means to acquire those PDFs. Thanks to their legal unavailability, there is now an incentive for normally law-abiding, but lustful for vintage D&D individuals, to pirate. If WotC hates piracy so much, they should make it really easy to not be a pirate.

It's not dilution. Nobody is going to avoid buying 4e to buy an AD&D manual, and they are only slightly likely to do so for a 3e manual.

It keeps people part of the D&D community. If I like 3e but I don't like 4e, once 3e becomes unavailable from WotC, I become on orphan. If it goes on long enough, I stop relating to D&D as strongly because D&D comes to mean 4e and not-3e. Then, when 5e rolls around, I'm less excited, and maybe I don't even buy 5e at all. This reason is probably what motivated Mike Mearls to post what he did. By abandoning 3e, WotC effectively created Pathfinder, and thereby created a situation where many of their fans may never "come home."

This is the 21st century. The question is not whether IP law will change, but how and when. The ease of information exchange suggests it will be toward greater openness. With the OGL, WotC signalled they were ready to experiment with something new. With the GSL, they retreated back to the reactionary stance of the 1980s. By doing so, they are re-arming for a series of legal battles that no one wins. The best case for them is to preserve the status quo, and at some expense. The worst case is they lose a few cases and find themselves on the losing side of history.

Finally, draconian acts have a chilling effect on a community. Is WotC content to have "consumers" or would they rather have fans?

 

[Umbran]

WotC is not in the business of growing and selling 4e/DDI. They are in the business of making money.

And they have to make some choices of direction in order to do that. They cannot expect to make money without direction. 4e seems to be the current chosen direction. It isn't reasonable to expect a business to act out of line with its chosen direction.

It's not dilution. Nobody is going to avoid buying 4e to buy an AD&D manual, and they are only slightly likely to do so for a 3e manual.

We ought to keep in mind the difference between what we think as plausible reasoning, and Truth. Ultimately, we don't know if there would be dilution or loss of 4e sales. We may think of believe it, but it is possible for others to think differently, especially if they have different information than we do.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am sure that WotC has good reasons to avoid making earlier editions of D&D available.

I am equally sure that WotC has good reasons to want us to accept WotC as a bunch of "big tent" kinda guys.

They just have to decide which reasons are more important, because they cannot have it both ways. Regardless of how much they, or others, might wish that they could.

This is intended to be constructive, rather than divisive.

A lot of the unfortunate commentary directed toward WotC is based upon the perceived dichotomy between what is said and what is done. I, for one, would respect them more if they were more frank.

"I'm sorry, but projections show that keeping the older pdfs available reduces sales of our current edition, so we're shutting those down." I can understand that. I can respect that. It doesn't insult my intelligence.

There are times when you can't have it both ways. Instead of sending mixed messages (which hurts you more than you might think), figure out which way is the best, and go that way. Openly. Heck, proudly even. There's nothing wrong with that.

Because, while I might not like 4e, you might want to sell me 5e or 6e some day. And I want to be able to trust you.

-----

Speaking of potential future editions, WotC, you might want to consider tapping the Jester in particular for future work on Skill Challenges. After all, a person who can make me see their potential is doing far better than has been done in your DMG.

In fact, right now, you might want to consider tapping some of the finer 4e DMs on EN World (and elsewhere) right now to produce adventures for you. You have produced some really nice background material for 4e (fluff, as some call it), but don't seem willing or able to use it to its best advantage. But there are folks here who can and do, and you need some of that.

And, like a broken record, I'll posit again that it's the organizational format you insist on using that makes not only your adventures all resemble each other, but the encounters within the adventures as well. v You don't seem to want to ditch the delve (as I suggest you do), but you could at least open it up some more, make it a little more flexible.

------

For new editions and for current edition adventures, I would recommend getting together to play through some of the classic modules using the editions they were written for.

Ignore for a moment what you don't like about them, and concentrate on the good stuff. What did you enjoy? What made these modules classics? What made these systems work? How can you put some of that back into your current/new line?

Now look at what you don't like about them. How can you fix those problems without dumping the stuff you enjoyed?

See, this last bolded bit is where I think your problem lies. That's the challenge. And, at the end of the day, that's where you're either going to have a hit or a miss.

IMHO, anyway.

RC

 

[Mark CMG]

The big tent people seem to be asking the last of the stalwart 4e 3pps to wait outside despite their pleas for assistance -

AN OPEN LETTER WOTC: SAVE 3RD PARTY DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS PUBLISHERS | LivingDice.com

 

[Mercurius]

Who are the "big tent people" that you are talking about, Mark? Mike Mearls is the only one from WotC that we have gotten a "big tent" statement from. There are plenty of big tent folks that aren't in WotC, like myself, but we certainly aren't asking 3PPs to "wait outside." In fact I agree with Chris Dias's suggestions.

So I ask, who are you talking about? The only one that makes sense is Mike Mearls.

 

[Mark CMG]

Who are the "big tent people" that you are talking about, Mark?

The WotC people Chris Dias is primarily addressing in his open letter, the people Mike Mearls represents when he makes public statements on his WotC blog, the people who are in charge of the GSL that is leaving Mister Dias and other 4e 3pps behind, the only big tent people who really get to decide who is actually allowed in the so-called big tent. Sorry, not you. I didn't mean to imply that you had any ability to control who was in the big tent or allowed in or able to ask someone to leave or the size of the tent or anything else.

 

[pawsplay]

We ought to keep in mind the difference between what we think as plausible reasoning, and Truth. Ultimately, we don't know if there would be dilution or loss of 4e sales. We may think of believe it, but it is possible for others to think differently, especially if they have different information than we do.

In keeping an open mind, I do not have to have an undiscriminating one. Perhaps I lack imagination, but I just cannot conceive that anyone shopping for B4 is postponing a 4e purchase. Either they play 4e, in which case you can probably sell them both products, or they don't, in which case you will never sell them 4e. Someone who plays 4e and not previous editions would have few reasons to purchase a $4 PDF of B4 instead of some 4e product.

What about the WotC research that determined that someone who already owned a lot of gaming products was more, not less, likely to buy another product? I can even speak of a psychological principle that suggests why this would be so. It's called disinhibition. When we "take down the gate" and allow ourselves to gruntle some urge, we reduce our inhibition against others. Hence, after ordering fries, which are not on the diet, we are more likely to go for the apple pie, too. After purchasing a day pass to the amusement park, we are more likely to pay $7 for a hamburger while we are there. If I buy one gaming product and like it, I reinforce my "buying games" behavior. The more of a fan I am, the more likely I am to seek out further experiences that may be gratifying. That's why in-print games with lots of sourcebooks tend to be more popular than OOP with only one book; there is always "more" if you want another fix.

If WotC is hoping that, with the unavailability of those PDFs, they will create a collective loss of memory as to what D&D used to look like, I think they are setting themselves up for a negative reaction. They should be showcasing those old things, just as DC regularly puts together anthologies, albums, and retrospectives on their properties. Moving away from the discussion of the opiod rush of purchasing, sociologically, we identify with our activities. Since I started collecting quirky old games, I have not stopped: Fantasy Wargaming, Palladium, The Arcanum all now grace my shelves. Why? just to experience them, and compare them to other games I know. Given enough time, I would probably buy every $4 PDF of every product ever made available. Those old products provide a link between a familiar and happy experience and a new and exciting experience. WotC knows that, that's why the new Red Box exists.

But where is the nerve and the will to do more? As long as I feel like WotC is sniffing my wallet, I feel disinclined to give them more money than serves my minimum purposes. If, on the other hand, they provide me with a wealth of imagination-stimulating opportunities, a community, and a sense of continuity with history, I remain within the D&D tent, evangelizing, ultimately, the identity of their product. I don't want 4e to be my nemesis, yet I think I am reasonable in estimating that it has become an impediment to what I want.