Monte Cook speaks ... and he doesn't hate 3.5!

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

They're posting the revision in the SRD document on the same day that the books come out. How is that not serving the customer?

I'm with you there.

The SRD has 95% of the rules. The WotC site has an amazing ammount of free stuff. All a gaming group really needs is a PHB, some dice, internet access, and a school or work printer. For US$30 - $40 five guys can kick back and level up from 1 to 20.

I'm frankly a little stunned that WotC's position is seen as money-grubbing.

 

[Enceladus]

We have been empowered to do what we are told to do.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The difference between A and B is largely illusory, and based on your personal "need" for the product.

So lets say then that a Honda and a Yugo are the same thing then since they are both cars. Except one is built well and one is not. The Yugo company then markets thier car as the best that money can buy. I have a need for a car but I will be happy if I buy the Honda while I will be upset if I buy the Yugo because they lied about it in thier marketing. There is not an illusury difference. One company is good, the other is bad. Both make money but the Yugo people are morally wrong in what they are doing.

Do you "need" role-playing games?

No I want role playing games, but I want ones that I enjoy playing. If you lie about it durring marketing there is a greater chance I will buy it and end up unhappy because iot is not what you prommised.

Capitalism has nothing to do with "morality," man!

Well then, I guess the execs at Enron and Worldcom should be congratulated instead reviled for what they did.

 

[jasamcarl]

Of course, in order to make money, they would have to have percieved areas where was the game was weak and a demand to fix them. The idea that a company making money and customer interests or the applicable motives are mutually exclusive is simplistic. If a voluntary transaction is made, then by definition both sides win, because both sides know what there interests are.

 

[spunky_mutters]

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on EN World...EVER.

Simply by being in business as a company they have declared their intentions to seek profits. Marketing is merely the tool they use to attempt to make it palatable.

Either you are joking or there really is no fear of them insulting your intelligence... ... ... ... ...

Of course you can fault them for it. Maybe not as a shareholder, but certainly as a gamer.

Consider the tactics of Games Workshop:

I buy buttloads of miniatures to put together an army. In the time it takes me to collect and paint an army suitable for tournament play, a revised edition has been released. Okay, I purchase that. Oh wait, a lot of the miniatures in my army have been removed from tournament play. I can see modifying rules, but disallowing miniatures is only done to sell you different miniatures to fill out your army. This is done because they are seeking profits. Can you fault this? It's similar to WotC's behavior with regard to Magic. Use official channels (leagues) to keep product moving.

Now I'm not saying that WotC is doing the equivalent of saying your books are worthless, and the SRD certainly goes a long way to mitigate rule change problems, but clearly some people feel that they are having their game changed out from under them (certainly those participating in Living Campaigns who don't want to buy new books). To say that someone who feels lied to by the marketing department of WotC has said the most ridiculous thing you've heard here, I find kind of hard to believe.

If he's upset, he obviously thought that the WotC designers were working with the intention of creating a better game, not just playing milk the suckers. It was explicitly stated (I believe it was Ed Stark, but I could be wrong) that the new edition was being released about 3 years earlier than they had planned because of player feedback. Of course they use marketing to make their products palatable, but if Monte is right then they have also used outright falsehoods as part of their attempts to make it fly. If you think this behaviour is exactly what being in business is about, I am sorry. Morality does play a role in business; it builds confidence in your company. Lying to your clients is just asking for trouble.

While I am looking forward to 3.5, and I don't begrudge them another release of the core books, I do find it troubling that it appears we have been presented with false information.

 

[Tom Cashel]

So lets say then that a Honda and a Yugo are blah blah...

I thought we were talking about RPGs. Apples and Carburetors, my friend. Apples and carburetors.

No I want role playing games, but I want ones that I enjoy playing. If you lie about it durring marketing there is a greater chance I will buy it and end up unhappy because it is not what you promised.

I didn't promise you anything.

More often than not, "advertising" is "lies." Which is why making money has nothing to do with morality. Making money has to do with the best way to make money. Period.

Your only recourse is to send a message to WotC by not buying their product. Congratulations. You've exercised your rights in a capitalistic society.

Well then, I guess the execs at Enron and Worldcom should be congratulated instead reviled for what they did.

Wrong. You missed the point. The execs at Enron and Worldcom did what they did because capitalism has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with making money.

I think you're a little hung up on this good/bad thing, man.

 

[coyote6]

Either you are joking or there really is no fear of them insulting your intelligence... ... ... ... ...

You were joking when you inferred that Dr_rictus is un-intelligent, right? Forgot the smiley? Doing your Hong impression?

FWIW, WotC has to make money. Yay money.

The US automobile industry, in the '70s, adopted a policy of purposefully building cars that would become obsolescent in a few years, so that consumers would be driven to purchase new cars -- thus insuring a steady and profitable income source for themselves. This ultimately damaged the US automotive industry. (That's all as I recall & understand it; disclaimers apply, no warranty given, etc.)

Also as I understand it, Games Workshop purposefully releases new versions of their games every few years, versions that are largely incompatible with the prior versions; this insures that there are new game sells, new mini sales, etc. They expect to turnover their entire customer base every few years. And it's working for them.

My cynical, pessimistic, un-(or barely-)founded hypothetical concern is that WotC/Hasbro's management will decide to adopt a similar policy for D&D.

It's clear that there are elements of D&D 3.5e that are already generating, umm, vigorous discussion of the sort that allegedly prompted D&D 3.5e. I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be other things (changes or un-changes) that we haven't yet seen that will prompt more chatter.

So will WotC/Hasbro/Zurich Gnomes management decide in a couple of years that a new edition is needed? If so, will whoever is in R&D at that point be able to "make lemonade" (to quote Monte out of context in an entirely new way ) as effectively as the current crew? And will that hypothetical new edition contain the seeds of yet another new edition?

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Seriously, even Microsoft wouldn't do that. Instead, they give out some good stuff, and if you want to change, you can do so.

And if their marketing stance had simply been, "we believe this is going to make D&D a higher-quality product, and we believe that gives you a compelling reason to change," I would have had no problem with that. Even if they had also said, "we feel the need for new product to juice up our sales" (which, of course, is an unlikely thing to say).

Instead, it's "because YOU demanded" a bunch of stuff that clearly was not widely demanded, in that it came as a surprise to everybody. And it's "minor, back-compatible changes" which are largely neither. And somehow there's anybody who does not find this objectionable in itself?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

And if their marketing stance had simply been, "we believe this is going to make D&D a higher-quality product, and we believe that gives you a compelling reason to change," I would have had no problem with that. Even if they had also said, "we feel the need for new product to juice up our sales" (which, of course, is an unlikely thing to say).

Agree.

Instead, it's "because YOU demanded" a bunch of stuff that clearly was not widely demanded, in that it came as a surprise to everybody.

Disagree. People did demand changes, and some of these changes were widely demanded. Of course, lots of people weren't demanding such a large revision, and if they don't want that, they don't have to part with their cash.

And it's "minor, back-compatible changes" which are largely neither.

I believe they misled people on this - I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but nonetheless it was done.

Some of the core rule changes are massive, but I'm not seeing any serious conversion problems. The only one that causes me any worry (as of yet, anyway) is wizard school specialization, since that involves re-writing entire spell lists and changing character concepts. Even the ranger Hit Dice and druid animal companion changes do not bother me.

I don't particularly care if "splatbooks" become out of date, however.

And somehow there's anybody who does not find this objectionable in itself?

That's hard to say. I'm too used to following politics to find anything objectionable anymore

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

The US automobile industry, in the '70s, adopted a policy of purposefully building cars that would become obsolescent in a few years, so that consumers would be driven to purchase new cars -- thus insuring a steady and profitable income source for themselves. This ultimately damaged the US automotive industry. (That's all as I recall & understand it; disclaimers apply, no warranty given, etc.)

There was also the twin issues of OPEC not selling oil to the US and those Japanese cars that were small and got great gas milage. Suddenly, getting 10mpg was a real problem and the American car companies weren't outfitted to address the need of someone wanting a small gas-friendly car. So it was also a case of the US auto manufacturers not examining the market and addressing the market's needs.

But your metaphor still holds in that the US auto companies had a certian ammount of hubris and assumed the presence of an American buyer who would always come to them.