quality of recent WotC products

[jmucchiello]

What bothers me moreso than the errors themselves is their repetition. It's obvious that problem areas (like the stat blocks) have been identified recently and in the past. Wouldn't it behoove WotC to maybe alter their in-house processes a bit in order to catch some of these issues earlier or try to eliminate some altogether?

Will doing so positively affect their bottom line in a significant fashion? Unfortunately, no, it won't. So why bother? Just because you are hyper-aware of language and grammar doesn't mean everyone else is or even should be. People don't READ role-playing supplements: not like someone would read a book. They flip through them, flip around in them, look over what catches their eye, etc. And even those who do read the books, they aren't reading them for the same reason one reads a novel. They are looking for ideas, concepts, bits and pieces that they can use in their games.

Reading a novel, one might be put off by running into a typo or grammar error. But when the goal is not to read a story but to mentally index for future ideas, a typo here, use of effect instead of affect, a few stat block errors, none of these things detract from the value of the information.

Buyers are tolerant of the mistakes because the books are used for reference, not for reading.

 

[GlassJaw]

But when the goal is not to read a story but to mentally index for future ideas, a typo here, use of effect instead of affect, a few stat block errors, none of these things detract from the value of the information.

Buyers are tolerant of the mistakes because the books are used for reference, not for reading.

As someone mentioned previously, where and when do you draw the line? When does it become unacceptable?

The problem with WotC is that it's getting worse. When I look at a product released by WotC, I'm assuming it has errors in it. In any other business, that is unacceptable.

I said it before and I'll say it again, quality is a mindset. It's a choice. It has to be part of culture of the workplace. What I find so frustrating is that it wouldn't be difficult for them to reduce the errors by half with minimal investment.

If you have mechanics and stats in your books, you should strive to make sure that they are correct. Otherwise, don't use them. Again, when do the errors become a problem? Looking at the errors John found, you'll see that some of them are not so "minor". If errors in stats are acceptable, why have stats at all? Why not just make then up? The system is d20, not dclose_enough or d20(+/-)1or2.

I also have to say that when this attitude comes from a developer, it's not a glowing endorsement for your products.

 

[jmucchiello]

As someone mentioned previously, where and when do you draw the line? When does it become unacceptable?

Have you stopped buying WotC books? If not, than if hasn't reached that point for you.

The problem with WotC is that it's getting worse. When I look at a product released by WotC, I'm assuming it has errors in it. In any other business, that is unacceptable.

When you look at a newspaper do you think every fact has been checked twice and every word is spelled correctly? The editor of the paper knows there are mistakes in every edition he releases. It is acceptable. Is every news report 100% accurate? Is every diagnosis at a hospital right the first time? Is every criminal caught by the police? Is every house saved from condemnation by the fire department? Is there any job were perfection is ever achieved? Every single time? No. Not a single one. All of these endeavors are carried out by humans. Humans make mistakes. There is no such thing as a book without errors.

I said it before and I'll say it again, quality is a mindset. It's a choice. It has to be part of culture of the workplace. What I find so frustrating is that it wouldn't be difficult for them to reduce the errors by half with minimal investment.

And I asked you, would spending that minimal investment get ONE more person to buy their books? Maybe. Would it enable them to increase the print run by a factor significant enough for them to make more profit on every copy sold? I doubt it. In fact, even if one more person buy that book, that means the minimal investment has to be less than the profit on that one book.

If you have mechanics and stats in your books, you should strive to make sure that they are correct.

No one disagrees with this. There is however a point of diminished returns where the money you spend perfecting the data decreases your profit rather than increasing it.

I also have to say that when this attitude comes from a developer, it's not a glowing endorsement for your products.

My products get excellent reviews for their mechanics, thank you very much. But I appreciate you taking a cheap shot at them. I wasn't going to respond in this thread because I knew it risked making me look bad.

I'm not discussing the state of my products, I'm talking to you about the reality of business (that part of my first post you didn't answer). Would I like to hire a group of experts at $20-30/hr to go over all my stats? Yes, sure. Will I make the $400-600 that costs me back with added sales? No, I won't. Because as you have pointed out, people buy the books anyway.

I do the best I can and at some point I have to say, any more errors I fix will cost me more money to fix than to put the book out now. That is called doing business. I'm sorry if your hobby is being treated as a business. Would you prefer that no books are released because I put myself out of business looking for that last mistake? How about WotC being told by Hasbro to stop wasting money on RPGs and stick to their CCGs that make 10 times as much?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

My products get excellent reviews for their mechanics, thank you very much. But I appreciate you taking a cheap shot at them. I wasn't going to respond in this thread because I knew it risked making me look bad.

I think you're reading too much into this. From where I sit it looks like he is talking about the "general" you, and not "specifically" you.

Edit: Hmm... rereading that to make sure I'm not making a fool out of myself, I kinda of agree with you about the last line re: glowing recommendation.

That said, I don't think anybody expects perfect editting from smaller 3rd-party publishers. It is different for WotC though and I think they should be held to a higher standard. Especially since the editting generally does appear to be quite sloppy. Sure I can figure out most of the grammatical errors, but stat-blocks errors are especially frustrating to me since A) I don't have the time to double-check their entries, and B) While grammer errors in fluff don't change my game, errors in the stat-blocks sure do.

 

[GlassJaw]

I think you're reading too much into this. From where I sit it looks like he is talking about the "general" you, and not "specifically" you.

Thanks Nyarlathotep. I'm definitely not taking cheap shots jmucchiello. My stance couldn't be farther from that. I've never read any of your products. I'm just saying as a developer, announcing to your core audience that you don't proofread and check the products you release (I'm not saying that you don't) certainly won't help your bottom line.

It's my stance that given WotC's recent track record, they are doing just that.

When you look at a newspaper do you think every fact has been checked twice and every word is spelled correctly?

Terrible example IMO. Newspapers are released daily. The chance for errors is incredibly higher.

Have you stopped buying WotC books?

Yup.

part of my first post you didn't answer

Will doing so positively affect their bottom line in a significant fashion? Unfortunately, no, it won't.

How do you know? For small volume developers/companies, no, it probably doesn't. But for the volume that WotC deals in, it might.

There is no such thing as a book without errors.

I never said there was. There is a difference though between having mistakes, error, and typos and REPEATEDLY having mistakes, error, and typoes in your products.

There is however a point of diminished returns

Very true. Attempting to acheive 100% error-free is a fruitless endeavor. However, the amount of time that WotC would have to spend to get rid of a large percentage of the errors (some of them are just ridiculous) is very small compared to the return in quality. I initially threw out the 8 hours comment because if I spent 8 hours proofreading only, I could probably elminate 50% of the errors.

 

[Eremite]

(snip) Terrible example IMO. Newspapers are released daily. The chance for errors is incredibly higher.

It's also a terrible example because newspapers are essentially disposable; we're talking about reference books that are used for years.

Very true. Attempting to achieve 100% error-free is a fruitless endeavor. However, the amount of time that WotC would have to spend to get rid of a large percentage of the errors (some of them are just ridiculous) is very small compared to the return in quality. I initially threw out the 8 hours comment because if I spent 8 hours proofreading only, I could probably eliminate 50% of the errors.

I have to agree. The issue here is that the editors MUST be asleep at the wheel. If, as a but a fan, I can pick up more than 50% of the errors on my first reading of the book, which I do fairly rapidly, it strongly suggests that the PROFESSIONALS simply are not doing their jobs. Again, though, the bigger issue for me is that the collapse of the editing standards is symptomatic of a breakdown in the total development process: we keep seeing bad design.

Now, how long before we see something from WotC as stuffed up as, frex, Mongoose's first release of Conan?

 

[jmucchiello]

Thanks Nyarlathotep. I'm definitely not taking cheap shots jmucchiello. My stance couldn't be farther from that. I've never read any of your products.

Let's let this drop. I didn't mean to be so fiery in my response and I don't really think you meant me personally.

Terrible example IMO. Newspapers are released daily. The chance for errors is incredibly higher.

That was just one in a line of examples showing that mistakes have different value across different media. You said "In any other business, that is unacceptable." I was showing businesses where it is.

How do you know? For small volume developers/companies, no, it probably doesn't. But for the volume that WotC deals in, it might.

The economics of book printing works in tiers based on the number of books printed. A publisher like WotC can have 20,000-40,000 books printed in a single run and be fairly certain they will eventually sell out. Their deal with the printer says (for sake of discussion) the printer gets $2 per book for 20,000 print run or $1.75 per book for a 40,000 print run. So, the manager is given a budget for a book and is told to print as many as he thinks will sell. At some point he must decide if the difference between printing 20,000 and printing 40,000 (this is 25 cent * 40,000 or $10,000 ) will get him an extra 20,000 sales. So how much of that $10,000 can he reasonable spend on higher cost editing, compared to the extra cost of warehousing and shipping more books (and since it is more books, over a longer period of time). Half or more of that can easily be eaten up in storage and shipping charges and this whole thing assumes that the book sells through. What if 30,000 is the normal print through target. That means he only has an extra $5,000 to work with.

I'll grant that this is a cooked example. But it is the process that the product manager must go through to figure out how to make his book profitable. And since people buy the stupid books anyway, obviously editing is not the place to spend that extra potential money. In my scenario, you would need to say that books would sell twice as many copies if not for editing errors. I find that hard to swallow. Juggle the numbers any way you want (not that I think my numbers are perfect reflection of reality) but in printing there are price points where the cost of printing one more book drops the printing cost. Reaching that point is not always the best thing you can do unless you are sure your reason for jumping that quantity will not leave you pulping product in a few years because you printed too many and can no longer afford to store them.

That is how I assume that raising quality will not raise profit. I could be wrong, but given the way WotC (a bottom line oriented entity if there is one) acts one this topic, I doubt you will persuade me that I'm wrong.

I never said there was. There is a difference though between having mistakes, error, and typos and REPEATEDLY having mistakes, error, and typoes in your products.

No, there isn't. Not if you've got a spending policy that says "You have 3% of the budget for editing, not a penny more."

Very true. Attempting to acheive 100% error-free is a fruitless endeavor. However, the amount of time that WotC would have to spend to get rid of a large percentage of the errors (some of them are just ridiculous) is very small compared to the return in quality. I initially threw out the 8 hours comment because if I spent 8 hours proofreading only, I could probably elminate 50% of the errors.

What is your hourly rate? Are you on the company health plan? 401(k)? Is your workspace part of the building insurance policy they pay for? These are not silly questions. The cost of an editor is more than their gross pay. Each employee adds to a business' fixed costs. Does your pay plus those costs allow them to print a sufficient number of extra books that it earns them more money than the cost for you to exist on their payroll?

That is the question I will continue to ask until I'm blue in the face. They don't want there to be mistakes in the book any more than you do. But they have the choice of making a book with errors or not making the book. Hard to stay in business without products. They've lost you as a customer (according your response above). That is unfortunate for them. But until it results in a severe dip in sales, you are barely a blip on their sales projections. (Projections where RPGs are sold in the 100,000s and CCGs are sold in the millions.) Yes, and when that severe dip happens, most likely some higher level manager will cut the number of books produced and thus there will be a short period where editing quality will go up until those editors are let go and the print price-points dip to a lower level and the numbers work against quality again just at a lower level. And then chicken little projects the end of the RPG division, etc, etc. Or they just release 4th edition.

 

[jmucchiello]

we're talking about reference books that are used for years.

True reference books are printed again and again, year after year with slight revisions between printing. RPGs are disposable from the publisher's point of view. How many 2nd printing books (printed after TSR went out of business) do you have? Yeah, the core books are reference books that get reprinted occasionally. But once the last Player's Guide to Faerun leaves the waarehouse, I would be shocked if they reprinted it. No, like a newspaper or magazine, most RPGs get a single print run and that's it. They only get printed on heavier paper or hardcover because durability is a quality their customers regard highly enough to justify spending money on it to increase sales.

Again, though, the bigger issue for me is that the collapse of the editing standards is symptomatic of a breakdown in the total development process: we keep seeing bad design.

Substitute design guru for editor in my other argument and you have the same situation.

I don't want it to look like I'm knocking a competitor (and that's like a pawn shop comparing itself to Wal*Mart). But the brain drain they suffered with those well documented two layoffs (and a few noticable "rats fleeing a sinking ship" (and I'm not calling them rats just to be explicit here)) contributes to this. It's not that the remaining designers aren't capable. They just have fewer people to bounce ideas off of and those they can bounce ideas off of were not the people who designed 3.0. By having smaller staff the staff suffers from lack of diversity of idea. They also have fewer people who "know" the product who can say stuff like "you should read how THAT very idea you think is original was done in Tome and Blood and see what feedback we got about it."

 

[Dragon-Slayer]

Maybe WotC should take advantage of John Cooper and hire him. If anything, his reviews and multiple threads here have proven that he is not only efficient, but has an exellent grasp of the game mechanics and his reviews are very thorough. He is a goldmine they will let slip by if they don't acknowledge his ability to scrutinize a product.

 

[wedgeski]

Maybe WotC should take advantage of John Cooper and hire him. If anything, his reviews and multiple threads here have proven that he is not only efficient, but has an exellent grasp of the game mechanics and his reviews are very thorough. He is a goldmine they will let slip by if they don't acknowledge his ability to scrutinize a product.

But jm's excellent discourse about costs still stands. It's not a question of how talented or adept the folks at WotC are, it's a question of how much time and money they are given to play with. I'm sure that given the same time and motivation that JohnC has spent, there would be folks at Wizards who would do just as good a job. (Not to take anything away from John, who has rightfully made a name for himself as proof-reader-extraordinaire on these boards.)

I know we all want to presume that Wizards hires only the best of the best and gives them a utopian workplace in which to gestate works of RPG art (the 'hold them to higher standards' expectation), but that's clearly not the reality. Paper-thin margins and corset-tight costing are endemic to all niche industries, especially RPG's. The culture of 'good enough' which Glassjaw despises so much may well be the only way D&D is able to survive in the long term.