Monte Cook Presents the Year's best D20

[Rasyr]

He's not including anything from his own company, so there is no self promotion......

Actually there is. Every books that includes his name in the title is self promotion. The full title of AU is "Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed". Since this is "Monte's Choice of the Year's Best" or whatever he is going to call it, I would almost be willing to lay odds that he will have his name on the cover.

And truthfully, this is not the "Year's Best", this will be "What Monte likes from what publishers submitted to him". Nothing more, nothing less. That is another example of self promotion.

If it was really the Year's Best, it would more likely be chosen by a small panel of judges, NOT one person, and would actually look for the best from ALL the products published, not just those submitted, and then he would/should approach the publishers about including it after they selected what was best.

In another thread Monte tried to defend his not paying for contributions. Sorry, I don't care what was used for a model for this, but considering that he is getting for more rights (one time only, or forever, it doesn't matter) than is allowed by the OGL, I personally think that those who contribute get compensated.

Monte said something along the lines of not paying the publishers is okay cause the money wouldn't go to the authors/designers. The way to fix that is for submitters to provide the contact information to Monte, and he pay the authors/designers for what the publishers contribute. Or do as GMS suggested and give all proceeds to charity (beyond the costs associated with the book, and I would even agree that a fee for compiling/editing it is an associated cost). Yet, I noticed that part of GMS's post in the other thread got ignored.

Additionally, I seriously doubt that this product would aid sales of products. I have heard time and again that the life cycle for most products is normally about 3 months (for most d20 products this is true, only if because of the sheer volume of products released each year). Well, one of the many things that publishers complain about is that both the ENnies and the Origins Awards are too late in the year for those publishers to use them to market their products as it is way past their normal life cycle.

Yet, the "Year's Best" is cupposed to come out in September? That is AFTER both the ENnies and the OAs, so the chances of it helping to promote those products is reduced even further.

When I originally read about this idea, I thought it was good, until I read the submission guidelines. This basically has little to no benefit to the submitting publishers, and almost all benefit to Malhavoc.

Personally, I think that a Year's Best should be done by either WotC (since they publish D&D, having them select the best of ALL third party products actually makes sense), or by Dragon (Paizo being another company that services the entire d20 industry, not just their own small faction). I also think that the Year's Best should be released no later than March or April.

 

[Berandor]

It's the same self-promotion as with "Wes Craven presents Dracula 2000" or something like that. The self.promotion is more a by-product than the primary objective.

 

[Rasyr]

It's the same self-promotion as with "Wes Craven presents Dracula 2000" or something like that. The self.promotion is more a by-product than the primary objective.

True, and I didn't like that either. I am very strongly against the cult of personality, of putting somebody on a pedastal just because of they are a "big name". I don't like it when actors do it, and I don't like it when others do it. I think a person should be judged on their work, not because of their name.

I have also been thinking, instead of calling it "Year's Best", which is a misleading name considering the process for submission, and the fact that it is selected by one single person, perhaps he ought to rename it to "Showcase", as that does better describe this future product. It is him, showcasing things he likes, not neccessarily the "best" of the year.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

And truthfully, this is not the "Year's Best", this will be "What Monte likes from what publishers submitted to him". Nothing more, nothing less. That is another example of self promotion.

Did you happen to read his column on this? Try about four paragraphs down where he explains that this is just his opinion and that if you're not interested in his opinion then this isn't for you. Where in fact he up front states that this is just what he likes.

Additionally, I seriously doubt that this product would aid sales of products. I have heard time and again that the life cycle for most products is normally about 3 months (for most d20 products this is true, only if because of the sheer volume of products released each year). Well, one of the many things that publishers complain about is that both the ENnies and the Origins Awards are too late in the year for those publishers to use them to market their products as it is way past their normal life cycle.

Funny thing that. I've heard from some pdf publishers that every time there's a decent review of their product, sales go up. Even if the review is outside the 3-month optimal sales window. Can't speak to print publishers, but I know I've gone looking for and bought a couple products a year or more after they came on the market because it fit a need that I had.

I think this book is a great concept! (The cynical minded amongst you should think "naturally" to yourselves about now.) Saving me time by going through all the stuff out there and collecting the really good rules? Excellent.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Saving me time by going through all the stuff out there and collecting the really good rules? Excellent.

Comments like that don't strengthen the argument from the submitters' point of view.

Getting his fans to eat from his hand is the easy part; but getting those fans to make another purchase from the original source?

Wulf

 

[Umbran]

I'm taking some bits of this out of their original order, grouping things together by topic, rather than the order in which they were stated. My apologies if this confuses.

The judgement of one person who helped create a product is not always a reliable guide to the quality of subsequent products...

The judgement of people who use the product is more reliable.

My point is simply that a number of well-informed folk evaluating a product are more likely to give a good evaluation of that product than a single person.

The fallacy of monarchy is that one person is always wiser than many. The fallacy of democracy is that many people are always wiser than one.

Neither the individual, nor the group, is necessarily a better gauge of quality. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, depending on the details. The fact that he's only one person in no way precludes Monte from having good judgement. Why not at least give him a chance to show it before scoffing at the idea?

But I never meant to defend the Ennies in detail. In fact, I don't really pay attention to the Ennies.

[...snip...]

Huh? :\

What do you mean, "Huh?" Do you pay so little attention to the Ennies that you didn't know that a popular vote was involved at two different stages? If so, you're not really in a position to argue the point.

Self-promotion, pure and simple. Other publishers must pay fealty in order to 'trade upon Monte's good name' ...

What "pay fealty"? Since when is a review copy and the right to reprint sections "fealty"? He isn't asking for any loyalty, or extraordinary payment. Don't blow it out of proportion. This is no different than fiction editors setting up an anthology. George RR Martin and Gardner Dozois aren't lording anything over anybody when they ask for submissions.

Yeah, his own standards... :\

Yep, his own standards. He would be foolish to claim that he could judge by anyone else's standards, so he must use his own. As far as I'm aware, Monte has the best selling d20/OGL products outside of WotC itself. That sounds like his standards are probably pretty darned good.

I trust this was a Freudian slip?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

As a note, while I'm defending Monte, I'm not what you'd call a fanboy. I've only ever bought 2 Malhavoc products, and one of them I think is solid, but not inspired. Monte isn't the end-all, be all of gaming. But I think it is decidedly unfair and uncalled for to claim that he's doing this for self-aggrandizement. That's an extraordinary (and ad hominem) claim, and you ought to provide some solid reasoning to back it up.

 

[broghammerj]

Well I'll throw my two cents in. Why? Becase it is implied by some that my opinion should count as much as Montes.

My take on Monte:

He is the closest thing to a celebrity as this industry has (minus the grand poo bah Col. Pladooh). Does his opinion count? I would certainly think so. He helped design the game, produced a multitude of gaming materials, has been a spokesman for the industry, etc. Am I his fanboy? Certainly not. Although I have enjoyed some his work (I think Dark Matter is one of the best sourcebook ever made) he has laid some stinkers as well. Most importantly from what I am told is that he is very personable and a nice guy who obviously has the interest of the industry at heart. This thread should not boil down to personable attacks.

My take on the project:

This treads dangerously on shaky ground. Is there some self promotion involved? Yes, that is a side effect of this book but I don't necessarily think that's bad. Is his using his name to sell a product? Yes, that is why Ford makes the Eddie Bauer and Harley Davidson version of the F150 pickup. This is great forum to showcase PDF writers and small publishers......OR IS IT? I don't expect Green Ronin, White Wolf, S&S Studios to send submissions. They don't need to. I expect Joe Little Guy trying to make his break into RPGs to make a submission. My concern is that the little guy is not going to be rewarded. They apparently don't receive any monetary benefit. If a mediocre product has the best rule set for lets say spaceship combat, but the rest of the book is crap. Is this best of book going to drive people to buy that supplement and reward the author with a purchase. Probably not. Then this becomes Malhavoc's making money on the back of the little guy.

Solution:
Pay people for the content that they provide for the book based on the volume of material.. Obviously there is going to be a mark up for Monte's time and Malhavouc's resources as they need to make money to make it worth the effort. Or as others have said donate the money to charity.

 

[philreed]

This treads dangerously on shaky ground.

I don't think so. In my opinion, it's an excellent idea and one that could have been executed without opening the process to submissions. After all, it would be a simple matter for any of us to go through the OGC released in 2004 and put together a "Best of 2004" product. I've expected a D&D Annual that would do just that and have been surprised not to see one.

While it would be nice to see the material used paid for, it really is a good marketing tool for those who are accepted. And just like any good marketing tool, it will be of more value if _you_ make it more valuable.

I'm likely going to submit to this. Will it do me any good? I can't say "yes" with certainty but, in my opinion, if I'm selected I'll be able to leverage my placement in the book into increased sales.

 

[Rasyr]

Did you happen to read his column on this? Try about four paragraphs down where he explains that this is just his opinion and that if you're not interested in his opinion then this isn't for you. Where in fact he up front states that this is just what he likes.

Which is why I suggested changing the name to Showcase, not have it called "Year's Best". The current name implies something that is not neccessarily true, and is thus misleading. Not everybody who sees this product will have read that article, and thus they will not know that is it more of a personal showcase of favorite bits and maybe not the year's best.

The fact that it will only include bits from only those submitted rather than all the products published is also another spot where an unsuspecting consumer can be deceived (whether intentional or not, a customer who has not read all of these threads and/or the announcement will most likely be deceived as to the nature of the product unless the product also reiterates the basic content of that announcement as well).

Funny thing that. I've heard from some pdf publishers that every time there's a decent review of their product, sales go up. Even if the review is outside the 3-month optimal sales window. Can't speak to print publishers, but I know I've gone looking for and bought a couple products a year or more after they came on the market because it fit a need that I had.

First off, please note that I said "most", not all. Secondly, while I did not specify, I was referring to print products, not PDFs. PDFs use an entirely different business model.

Also, after the first several months, most print product have sold the majority of copies that they are going to sell. This does not mean that they will not sell more copies, only that any additional sales are basically residual in nature.

There are also always exceptions to the rule. For example, the core books for a setting or game will usually have a much longer life span than supplements.

 

[Berandor]

Which is why I suggested changing the name to Showcase, not have it called "Year's Best". The current name implies something that is not neccessarily true, and is thus misleading.

The name is chosen for best marketing purposes. "Year's Best" is more likely to sell than "Showcase".
This is like the cover blurb on a product claiming "all the rules you'll ever need" or something like that.