NDA Early access to 3.5 rules for d20 Print Publishers

[PatrickLawinger]

Wow!

This appears to be getting out of control. I don't know why I am jumping back into the fray. I guess I have a few minutes until lunch is ready.

I can't recall any negative comments I made vs pdfs, I think d20Dwarf's statements weren't meant to be as negative as people took them.

The point I have been trying to make all along is that WotC is making a definite effort to continue encouraging and fostering the d20 market. LOTS of people on this board declared d20 all but dead when Ryan Dancey left simply because they felt that the SRD would never be updated with new material. d20 Modern and the promise to release the "revised" material in the SRD quickly destroy that. I think people should be encouraged by this because WotC is making it clear that they do want the d20 market to continue and succeed. This would seem obvious because it helps them sell books, but I have seen numerous threads here and on other message boards claiming otherwise.

Personally, I would not have made decisions based on print vs pdf (and who knows, they might not make decisions that way). I would make the decision based more on the number of products, quality of products and # of sales (using different standards for .pdfs that usually don't sell as many copies as print). Let's be honest, there are some BAD print products out there. Of course, this would still mean some people wouldn't be in the "inner circle" and therefore cause complaints about the person (or people) deciding who is "in." This would almost certainly be a more expensive process in terms of man hours. Let's face facts, they don't have to spend money doing this in the first place.

Sure, I disagree with the method they are using to decide who gets "in," but that doesn't change the fact that they are spending money, time, and effort to support the d20 market when they don't have to. (Yes, we could argue whether or not they "have" to for good feelings, etc. but lets not)

There are a number of excellent .pdf products out. I am biased toward Dark Quest Games because I have written for them a little bit and found Neal and Darren to be two of the nicest people I have dealt with. DQG has put out a number of good DnD products and I believe they are (or already have) converting their popular CyberStyle line to d20 Modern. I don't see why you would leave them out of the running. Then again, that is my opinion, I am sure you can find someone that doesn't like them. Who gets to decide if they should be "in?"

Frankly, I don't envy WotC. They are trying to do something nice. They obviously can't do it for everyone, no matter where or how they draw the line someone is going to be upset.

 

[AerosAtar]

Personally, I do not think it has anything to do with the financial or quality differences (whether these differences are perceived or factual is irrelevant) between Print publishers and PDF publishers.

I believe it has to do with the cost to Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast will see no immediate return for doing this, and are unlikely to see any direct long-term return for doing so, since the information will be available in the SRD in July when the revised books are released.

Considering how much this will cost Wizards of the Coast (printing and distributing the current revision manuscript), I can quite understand their desire to limit the number of copies they are sending out.

Now, some of you disagree on their way of determining who is to receive one of these copies. However, please stop for a moment and think what sort of controversies and calls of favouritism would be thrown into the fire if Wizards of the Coast took some of the suggestions here and used a quality or quantity-based system. Not to mention the way some people will assume that, because some companies received a copy of the document, they must be 'endorsed' by Wizards.

Personally, I think that Wizards have done this the fairest way they can, while not risking a) the aforementioned calls of favouritism and 'official endorsement', b) a financial outlay that is beyond their means (that they have no real way of recovering) and c) minimising the risk of the information being prematurely released to the public (since the revisions, from what I understand, are still partly in development).

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Master01]

To me WotC should give an opportunity to us, pdf-only publishers, to get the rules earlier.

I feel that Øone Games like many other pdf-only publishers, produces high-quality pdf products that have nothing to envy to most printed products. Speaking for myself, Øone's products were made for print, but we do not have funds to bring them in print form.

So, what is the difference?

The difference, to me, is how much professional is the approach to the market for the publisher and how much its products can contribute to develop the D20 system.

As Monte pointed out the PDF market is expanding (and some of us were pioneers) and it is not wise for the WotC to ignore that.

My 0.00002 cents...

 

[Strutinan]

This gross generalization is indeed false. Not because so many PDFs are great, but because the production values of so many printed products are... well, not good

Dearest holy gods, I agree with Monte on something... It is the third sign of the Apocalypse!

I just need to point something out: WotC is unnecessarilly inflating thier cost of releasing the 3.5 SRD. This is an unassailable point, it cannot be argued.

FACT: The 3.0 SRD is well over 300 pages long, the 3.5 has EXTRA material (IMO, probably pushing to a ream or more).

FACT: Paper weighs ALOT.

FACT: Shipping costs are based off of weight (I schlepp packages at MBE, it costs about 20 bucks to ship the typical ream accross the contry).

FACT: Print publishers have computers (otherwise how could they generate the printing file?)

FINAL FACT: It costs about 2 bucks to ship a CD accross the country.

If money is the big limiter of who gets in on this, and who does not, then why is WotC using such an inefficient information distribution method?

 

[jmucchiello]

If money is the big limiter of who gets in on this, and who does not, then why is WotC using such an inefficient information distribution method?

This is at least easy to understand. Obviously they are worried about someone putting up on the web. Which is easier? Copying RTF files from a CD to a website or Scanning a ream of paper and making all the images available on the web.

Again, this assumes you cannot trust the integrity of those signing your NDA. And with a CD release they can customize the files for each publisher. Put a typo in a different monster's initiative for each publisher. If a copy ended up on the web, find the mistaken entry and you nail the "bad" publisher.

Can that really cost more time at the burning stage than packing a ream of paper into a box?

 

[d20Dwarf]

Put a typo in a different monster's initiative for each publisher. If a copy ended up on the web, find the mistaken entry and you nail the "bad" publisher.

I've never met a company with this much time on their hands. Let the unrealistic expectations continue!

 

[Mark]

Again, this assumes you cannot trust the integrity of those signing your NDA. And with a CD release they can customize the files for each publisher. Put a typo in a different monster's initiative for each publisher. If a copy ended up on the web, find the mistaken entry and you nail the "bad" publisher.

Contracts, such as NDAs, are not something someone asks you to sign because of trust, but rather to eliminate the need for trust. They are included in such a deal to enable WotC to seek damages if someone violates the trust. Obviously, someone who is in print publishing has to put more on the line and stands to lose more than someone producing PDFs. Discussions of trust or wishing that WotC made policy based on anything other than their ability to litigate in cases of violations seem to fall short of reality.

 

[Strutinan]

I've never met a company with this much time on their hands. Let the unrealistic expectations continue!

YOu have to wait for the printer to PRINT that ream of paper, which is FAR longer than it takes a CD burner to burn one CD. Then you have to bind it, even if its just in a presentation folder. Then stuff it and mail it. At least if they were doing CDs, there would be the option of making case-specific errors FOR litigation!

Also, how much money does a ream of paper cost? Answer: wholesale about $2.

How much does a CD with slim case cost? Answer: retail about $1 (wholesale $0.50).

Then ther is toner for the print-out, which will actually cost MORE than the paper!

No matter what you look at (man-hours, mateials, or shipping) using CDs instead of paper is the better alternative money-wise.