D&D 4E Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies

[BadMojo]

Not to be snarky, but Wizards has struggled with QC on their own products a few times. It would probably be a lot better for us as consumers if they focused any extra resources on getting things fixed with their releases and having errata come out quicker.

 

[tenkar]

Fees are not the secret for success.

A snazy logo, backed by WotC, is not the secret to success.

Quality products backed by word of mouth and luck... that makes or breaks rpg publishers.

 

[Michael Morris]

All WOTC has to do is add quality control that places the same standards on publishers of 3rd party materials that they place on themselves. Those 3rd party companies in turn should get access to the design guides and required standards that their products have to meet, and in turn they get to put the d20 logo and say they are for use with D&D 4e. Simple.

You're forgetting something that video game console markers have in their corner that WotC does not. The fiend that all programmers love and hate - the compiler (or interpreter in the case of languages like Javascript or PHP). You can put a lot of bullcrap into print without anyone knowing until they read it. By comparison, with a video game there's only so much crap you can get away with before the computer simply refuses to compile.

 

[Morrus]

Fees are not the secret for success.

A snazy logo, backed by WotC, is not the secret to success.

Quality products backed by word of mouth and luck... that makes or breaks rpg publishers.

Unfortunately, marketing plays a much bigger part in sales than that.

 

[Najo]

It doesn't have to be that complicated for WOTC to get better products out of the third party publishers.

1) Have legal requirements (like now) that set out expectations of the product's standards

2) Include the design documents that the in-house team use and require it to be used with any materials that are created for 4e. This document should be all of the inner workings on balancing feats, skills, magic items, etc. Including commentary from designers (like what you saw in the Rules Compendium). Examples of good and bad rules. Layout what sort of stuff should be avoided and why. Give step by step considerations to building mechanics properly. Lock this stuff down under NDAs. Keep the clause of you can't tell them how to generate stats or level the character. As it updates, publishers get those updates. These documents exist inside WOTC right now, always have, and 3rd party publishers should have accesss to them somehow.

3) Then require certain production standards and tradedress expectations for black and white and color products. Keep these somewhat loose, but clear enough that companies can put that D&D look on them. Just like a Wii, Xbox or PS game has trade dress. This document exists for D20 Modern in a roundabout way, the modern d20 liscense actually states what a 3rd party publisher can't do with graphics (i.e. copy the dark red and metallic look of modern's books basically.) You can do something similar to allow some visual compatibility between products, like a spine and side bar, certain ways information is presented in the stat blocks and game mechanic layout, what fonts to use or not use etc. Just so there is constistancy in design.

Once these things are done, WOTC has a tight package that requires no further up keep. A company pays for the developer package, signs the NDAs and they are off. They are responisble as they are now with keeping themselves compliant. If WOTC finds out that they break a rule, then the publisher has to pay to fix the damage, as it is now. Simple.

WOTC could offer editors to check for compliancy at a fee, potentially. But, that seems unecessary. I know that some industry names, like Ryan Danacy, are willing to do services like this if you ask, with their fee varying by the size of the project.

Right now, this whole OGL thing could be a repeat of what occured before or we can take the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the d20 brand and fix it. The main issue was the lack of quality control. So give a better quality control system to the publishers willing to pay for it. The rest can publish under the OGL without the d20 logo on them, and without teh compatibility language. Simple.

Alot of you are acting like these materials are difficult to produce. Truth is, most professional companies do this stuff all the time, WOTC being one of them. It is the reason WOTC is so much more professional and consistant over the other companies. These materials already exist for 4e, I guarantee it. Some of those materials would help these problems and draw a clearer line between the good and bad products out there, and D&D can grow and benefit from sharing those developer tools.

 

[Najo]

Fees are not the secret for success.

A snazy logo, backed by WotC, is not the secret to success.

Quality products backed by word of mouth and luck... that makes or breaks rpg publishers.

If you knew that the D20 logo meant that the publisher got to use the same tools that WOTC uses in house would it change your veiw of that publisher? If you knew they spent anywhere from 500.00 - 5000.00 to acquire those rights for their studio, would you think that they are willining to spend their money to make a better product? Would you be more likely to look at the d20 logo if that is what it meant?

Also, word of mouth and luck is not all it takes. It takes spreading advertisment everywhere so potential customers know about your product, it takes working with retailers to carry your product, it takes getting reviews done, going to trade shows to show it off, and creating marketing buzz. That all takes a solid marketing plan, dedicated staff, time and money. That is what makes or breaks a rpg publisher. Most of the publishers though don't treat it like that.

I personally am not a fan of Mongoose's products (except Conan is good). I feel they rush quality and do not test mechanics properily, yet they are pumping out more product than any other company in this industry. Honesty it amazes me they are still in business and have so many liscensed properties. They obviously have a market and are making money or have alot of money from an inheritance to burn. The one thing you can say about Mongoose is they market the hell out of themselves. Everyone knows who they are regardless if you love them or hate them. They seem to have a smart business model that works for them. I can respect that. They just aren't my cup of tea.

 

[tenkar]

Where are the advertisements these days? Dragon? Dungeon? Their gone... game over man!

What do we have left? KotDT?

I buy via word of mouth or impulse based on flipping thru a product. The D20 logo does not sell to me... I got burned at the beginning of the D20 era... never again.

If you think WotC can hand out some guidelines and standards and we can expect quality from all third party publishers you are sadly mistaken. Without quality control from WotC before distribution you have no quality control... once bad product hits the market with poor... really poor content (and it will hit the market IMMEDIATELY), the third party branding will lose its power as a marketing tool.

WotC would have to charge fees and expand their manpower if this was going to be done properly... they would need additional editorial and QA staff to ensure that third party publishers actually were complying with their legal obligations under the license.

Many of us remember the crap that was shoveled with the D20 logo on it at the release of 3e. That garbage hurt WotC too. I don't blame them for wanting to distance themselves from responsibility for the work of third party publishers.

 

[Najo]

Where are the advertisements these days? Dragon? Dungeon? Their gone... game over man!

What do we have left? KotDT?

Wizard, Game Trade Monthly, Toyfare, Diamond Previews, Co-op Ad Deals with other D20 Publishers like Piazo, web banners, forums where ads can be posted. Perhaps WOTC will even offer ads through gleemax and the dragon and dungeon online.

I buy via word of mouth or impulse based on flipping thru a product. The D20 logo does not sell to me... I got burned at the beginning of the D20 era... never again.

So if they relaunched with new requirements you wouldn't even look? If WOTC came out and said we have new standards we are holding these guys to, you wouldn't be the littlest bit curious to check those products out?

If you think WotC can hand out some guidelines and standards and we can expect quality from all third party publishers you are sadly mistaken. Without quality control from WotC before distribution you have no quality control... once bad product hits the market with poor... really poor content (and it will hit the market IMMEDIATELY), the third party branding will lose its power as a marketing tool.

I am not wanting to get into a flaming war here. I think you are discounting the power of branding requirements and quality control documents. All of the most professional properties and products use them to do just what I am saying, maintain quality control. For example, Magic the Gathering in the beginning had generic and very random artwork. It wasn't until Tempest that they really made use of style and story control guides. Those guides keep the artists and writers consistant. For example, every movie worth a damn uses control documents to maintain a level of quality through out the production. What do you think all of those art of books are based on? Style Guides and Control Documents. They tell the artist and writers to follow those guides. Something to this effect with the game mechanics would at least improve what 3rd parties offer, at least those under the D20 logo.

WotC would have to charge fees and expand their manpower if this was going to be done properly... they would need additional editorial and QA staff to ensure that third party publishers actually were complying with their legal obligations under the license.

They should charge a fee. As for manpower, what do they do now? If someone violates the D20 trademark liscense they send a boiler plate legal letter saying correct this problem as stated in article of the agreement your under. If the publisher doesn't comply, then it gets hairy, but I doubt many publishers would even challenge these matters. The liscense should protect WOTC, and make it an open and shut case for not following the standards.

Many of us remember the crap that was shoveled with the D20 logo on it at the release of 3e. That garbage hurt WotC too. I don't blame them for wanting to distance themselves from responsibility for the work of third party publishers.

That is because they didn't have these control methods in place. Once they tightend it down more, it got better. They only controlled the fluffy though with their decency clause. They need to put standards in the game mechanics too. RPG books are part fluffy and part crunch, how can the D20 standards only cover half of the formula and expect to work.

You are shooting down what I am saying to quickly. There is ways to do this without putting WOTC out much, in fact, they stand to make some money on it if they do it right. They could even have a second tier that allows an approval process and gets the D&D official logo put on the product. That would be awesome to see, though unlikely.

 

[tenkar]

If you knew that the D20 logo meant that the publisher got to use the same tools that WOTC uses in house would it change your veiw of that publisher? If you knew they spent anywhere from 500.00 - 5000.00 to acquire those rights for their studio, would you think that they are willining to spend their money to make a better product? Would you be more likely to look at the d20 logo if that is what it meant?

I remember a certain D20 publisher that shoveled a mountain of pure garbage in the early days of 3.0 (I have since been using pages of their products to line my bird cage)... I doubt they would have been put of by a fee of $500 a title. Even $5000 a title might have been ok by them during the early rush to separate fools from their money.

That being said even the more successful D20/OGL publishers run on a relatively small profit margin... taking money out of their hands is not a viable solution.

 

[tenkar]

That is because they didn't have these control methods in place. Once they tightend it down more, it got better. They only controlled the fluffy though with their decency clause. They need to put standards in the game mechanics too. RPG books are part fluffy and part crunch, how can the D20 standards only cover half of the formula and expect to work.

You are shooting down what I am saying to quickly. There is ways to do this without putting WOTC out much, in fact, they stand to make some money on it if they do it right. They could even have a second tier that allows an approval process and gets the D&D official logo put on the product. That would be awesome to see, though unlikely.

No flames here. Differing opinions only.

How do you control "crunch" prior to its publication? How do you set guidelines for rules? I understand how you can put some manner of control over the type of "fluff" that comes out, but "crunch" is hard to put limits on prior to it being published.

Guidelines work best when they give black and white restrictions... just like the decency clause you mentioned.

What kind of restrictions can we expect in the "crunch" department? No new classes? Feats? Spells? Magic Items? This is where the "crunch" falls apart... if you restrict innovations you not only stop the bad but the good as well.

If I publish a hardcover book with 10 magic items that are poorly balanced, the crunch is inconsistent, with fluff that contradicts itself and bloats to 96 pages for $34.95 BUT I comply with the guidelines of the D20 license... well, I'd be a publisher that wouldn't be in business long but might make some nice profit with some early releases. (Hey, its been done

No matter the guidelines garbage like this will only be prevented by pre-editing by WotC... a situation I am sure they have no intention of ever getting into. Nor do I blame them. Why should they edit, even for a fee, a product that they do not own? Product that may very well compete with a similar product of their own (imagine the temptation to torpedo a product that may steal shelf space from similar WotC product)

The now defunct rumor from Italy in which the top tier 3rd party publishers would get the D20 license, and lesser 3rd tier could either go to the top tier to publish under their D20 rights, or publish on their own via the OGL was intriguing. It gave WotC distance from possible troublesome works while still keeping a fairly tight influence on products that would hit the shelves with a D20 logo.