Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[BryonD]

My feeling is that the apparent success of PF suggests this may not be so - unless you are counting PF as a "moving on" from 3E - which may be so, but I don't think it's moved very far.

Clearly the implication to support you is strongly there.

IMO it was a case of "you don't know what you got til its gone."
3E was done. And really, from a serious market analysis, I don't think anyone disputes that. As was correctly pointed out, the 3PPs were starting to seek greener pastures and by all rumor (at least) WotC's late 3E stuff was well off the pace of earlier titles. (I could argue quality, but I don't think that was sole, or even primary, cause)

But, for a significant chunk of the marketplace, simply a brief period with the specter of having nothing* that really catered to their desires was enough to cause them to be thrilled just to have 3.5 back.

Obviously it is more complex than that because there ARE some changes. And probably much more significantly, WotC's 3.5 was founded on the game mechanics themselves. Pathfinder's foundation has far more to with setting and APs than WotC ever did. Not that there are not a lot of people who love the PF updates and ignore Golarion and the APs. But Paizo's bread and butter is heavily on the story side and WotC's was on the mechanics side.

So it really is both. It was done and Raise Dead was cast.


* - "nothing" meaning in terms of "fix" of the month of something new.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

WotC and Paizo are absolutely in competition. Where exactly the lines are isn't absolutely clear, but we have a generally idea. And how hugely excellent an idea the DDI is has zero bearing on the significance of market share. If anything, the profit leverage of the DDI magnifies the lost potential profits.

See, that's my sticking point. Well, obviously they are in competition, that's 100% factually accurate, but, how true is it? After all, every 3pp was in competition with WOTC and each other, but, "in competition" only means they are selling to the same demographic. People are using very, very skimpy evidence to claim that there's no more 800 pound gorilla, but, now there's two similar sized gorillas.

Even the idea of the "split" in the fanbase. How many people are buying Pathfinder books? How many are buying WOTC books? We DON'T know. Way, way upthread, someone mentioned how he sold way more PF versions of his book than 4e versions. But, his "way more" was something to the tune of 500 copies.

500 copies? At the end of the day, who cares? That's not even going to cover lunch money for a couple of days for a company the size of WOTC. There was much noise made about how the top 100 at Drive Thru RPG was mostly PF books. That's fine. But, what kind of numbers are we talking about? How many copies do I have to sell to break into the top 100 at Drive Thru RPG? 1000? 1500? Maybe?

So, even though the top 100 sellers at Drive Thru RPG are mostly PF books, if you actually look at the numbers being sold, it tells a pretty different story.

When WOTC sold out its first two print runs of the PHB, I was emphatically told, over and over again, that this meant nothing. This could not be used as any evidence of the strength of the 4e line.

Yet, the same people who told me that are now telling me that PF is equal to WOTC because of it's sales numbers. Numbers that are about as accurate as the average Magic Eight Ball.

It could very well be true. But, my point is, none of us know. We really, really don't. We're not even making educated guesses here. All you have to do is look at the user name and you can guess what side of the fence they're going to fall down on. This has nothing to do with facts even in the Fox News level of fact.

Me, I'm going to climb back up on the fence.

 

[pemerton]

WotC's 3.5 was founded on the game mechanics themselves. Pathfinder's foundation has far more to with setting and APs than WotC ever did..

Yes, I mentioned this in my post. I also suggested that it shows Dancey was mistaken in his views about what makes for a viable RPG business model. Do you think that's right? Or is there a difference between Paizo and WotC (eg number of employees) that I'm missing.

Also - do you have any opinion or insight as to WotC's problem with adventures? I mean, Mike Mearls can write good stuff - look at Penumbra's In the Belly of the Beast! So why is WotC's stuff so dismal?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is somewhat late to the party, but ...

A more appropriate word for "cooler" in the business world is "goodwill" which is actually, on occasion, accounted for as an asset by market analysts and actuaries.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Goodwill," in an accounting sense, is not "a financial guess at how much your customers like you." While that is somewhat the root of the word, it is no longer applicable as such in a modern context.

"Goodwill" is defined as the difference between the purchase price of a company and the asset valuation (including intangible assets like trademarks, brand names, etc.). That's it. [For a private firm, anyway, goodwill is undefined until a sale is made; for public firms, the stock price plays a role, and so it's more readily available.]

It is then, per current GAAP, adjusted on an as-needed basis, rather than amortized on a set schedule - which is where the accountants, actuaries, and analysts come in.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Very interesting!

The term goodwill was originally used in accounting to reflect the fact that an ongoing business had some "prudent value" beyond its assets, such as the reputation the firm enjoyed with its clients. Likewise, a buyer may agree to "overpay" because he sees potential synergy with his own business. The accounting sense of goodwill followed as a possible explanation of why a firm sells for more than the value of its current assets.

I had no idea I was using the archaic version of the term. Thankye!

 

[BryonD]

Even the idea of the "split" in the fanbase. How many people are buying Pathfinder books? How many are buying WOTC books? We DON'T know.

So therefore you are going to assume the claims to be false?

Knock yourself out. I don't care what you are comfortable believing. But if you feel the need to spin both the quality and quantity of data to fit your desired conclusions, that is informative. There have been detailed conversations before. You have been in them before. And again you are trying to push the "pretend these questions have not already been answered and start over" button.

We'll be over here if you ever decide to join us.

This has nothing to do with facts even in the Fox News level of fact.

There is all kinds of information buried in this comment. (Not the least of which is that you feel free to start playing with the "no politics" rule.)

 

[BryonD]

Yes, I mentioned this in my post. I also suggested that it shows Dancey was mistaken in his views about what makes for a viable RPG business model. Do you think that's right? Or is there a difference between Paizo and WotC (eg number of employees) that I'm missing.

I think you are not accounting for the differences in game fundamental design. Yes, Paizo's business model is Adventure based, but it is founded on the appeal of the 3E design. I think Dancey's claim presumed that there would be competition for that part of the market. When 4E was designed with a goal of appealing to the larger masses of people who were not already tabletop gamers, the whole dynamic was thrown off.

I'm obviously just guessing here, but... I think if you could go back in time to when Dancey made that statement and describe the events of recent years he would both stand by his statement and readily agree that Paizo had a great plan. They may appear contradictory on the surface, but the details are everything.

Also - do you have any opinion or insight as to WotC's problem with adventures? I mean, Mike Mearls can write good stuff - look at Penumbra's In the Belly of the Beast! So why is WotC's stuff so dismal?

Keep in mind that I have never bought a single 4E module.

I have for a long time now believed that Mearls is the best game designer currently in the industry. When he worked for Malhavok I joked that Cook was "management" and Mearls was "talent". (And I think Cook is very talented). The only other person I personally rank in his class is Steve Kenson.

So we agree. Mearls is really good.

4E was not designed for ENWorld or RPGnet fans. They wanted us to like it, I'm not saying otherwise. But they wanted us to come along for the ride in a game that was designed for a completely new and much larger audience.

For me, personally, an adventure designed for a game that isn't designed for gamers in the first place is not going to be as good. But that is just me. Clearly people who love 4E also are disappointed in 4e modules. At least in large enough numbers to be significant. [I can't prove this either Hussar, so go ahead and know that I'm wrong. I hereby declare you the victor]

So we can conclude there really is something to 4e modules that is lacking.

Perhaps, just as the game was not designed with ENWorlders in mind as a primary target. The modules are not either. So when we don't like them, it isn't very meaningful.

Obviously we have been around and around about what 4E does and does not do well. And also clearly you have a great deal of history in gaming theorycraft. I think we would both agree that you apply that knowledge and experience when you run 4E. (As does any decent GM running any system)

Now, my position would be that you are compensating for issues inherent to the 4E system. I don't doubt you can make a great gaming experience through doing that. But you as a knowledgeable and experienced "gamer" being part of the process is important. 4E design, and modules, does not assume you or anyone like you will be there. To the contrary, their business goal specifically presumes that for the vast majority of tables, no one like you will be there because they have drawn hordes (no WOW pun intended) of new fans to table top for the first time. So not only is the talent you bring absent, it is specifically designed out because they don't want to burden potential new gleemaxDDI subscribers away.

So, when we gamers get together and conclude that 4E modules are lacking. Perhaps we are simply wrong. Maybe we are wine snobs saying that Budweiser isn't good wine.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I also suggested that it shows Dancey was mistaken in his views about what makes for a viable RPG business model. Do you think that's right? Or is there a difference between Paizo and WotC (eg number of employees) that I'm missing.

I think the main point is that Paizo's business model being good does not necessitate that WotC's model is bad. Each company has different goals. The rightness or wrongness of the decisions each company has made depend on whether they met their goals or not. That's the piece of the puzzle we're all missing. We can all give our opinions on whether each company has made decisions that our right or wrong for us, but without knowing the goals of each we can only speculate over whether the decision made were right or wrong at the time they were made and whether those decisions panned out in the end.

Also - do you have any opinion or insight as to WotC's problem with adventures? I mean, Mike Mearls can write good stuff - look at Penumbra's In the Belly of the Beast! So why is WotC's stuff so dismal?

So we can conclude there really is something to 4e modules that is lacking.

Perhaps, just as the game was not designed with ENWorlders in mind as a primary target. The modules are not either. So when we don't like them, it isn't very meaningful.

I think it's diverted focus. The goals of WotC, as BD points out, are rules-driven. This puts a large focus on developing new and (hopefully) interesting rules and leaves little time for good adventure development.

I felt the same during the 3.x days. Paizo was my source of good adventures back then too. While the 3E WotC adventures were certainly better than the 4E offerings, they were still poor in comparison to Paizo's work.

I feel like this was what WotC was looking for when they started the OGL. I believe they envisioned a gaming landscape where they churned out the ruleset while others provided the settings and adventures. I think one of the factors (although probably not the biggest) involved in the withdrawal from the OGL was that they never initially pictured other companies creating competing rulesets.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

So, when we gamers get together and conclude that 4E modules are lacking. Perhaps we are simply wrong. Maybe we are wine snobs saying that Budweiser isn't good wine.

I think this is a significant factor.

I think Paizo is leading the industry in adventures. But I don't think that means that adventures are leading the industry.

Rich, deep, flavorful game content may not be what WOTC sells because rich, deep, flavorful game content may not sell well.

Edit to add: "Leading the Industry" in sales, to be clear.

 

[Wicht]

I think one of the factors (although probably not the biggest) involved in the withdrawal from the OGL was that they never initially pictured other companies creating competing rulesets.

People keep saying this and I keep wondering, who specifically do you mean by "they?"

Rayn Dancey is quoted as saying, "I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners."

That sure sounds to me like he knew pretty well what he was doing when he did it.

Now, initially, the d20 license was designed to mandate the purchase of a PHB. Dancey is on record hoping someone would make a "Wild West" game using d20 that would require others to purchase the PHB.

But the OGL is a different beast and it was always meant, by Dancey, to allow a back and forth sort of design process with each company feeding off of the work of others.