Tome of Horrors overlaps with new Fiend Folio

[Knight Otu]

Yes. This and this have been integrated to the SRD, and replaced their Psionics Handbook equivalent.

You might want to look at the SRD again...

 

[Samnell]

You seem to misunderstand my want, as well as the conditions of that want.

Entirely possible. We're however many posts in and I still have no idea why anyone would want what I think you want.

And here is where my "want" comes in: All I "want" is to know if this is still their line of thought.

I don't see why they would.

I'm more concerned about whether or not they're willing to admit that others have done just as good or better than them in some regards, or if the horn-blowing in Monster Manual 2 is all they're going to give in that regards compared to earlier official statements made by their representative previously that no other representative has thus far given notice to changing.

Ok, so you're upset that they don't clue you in on every decision they make for whatever reason. Gotcha. Plus you think they're a big bad meanie who's been outclassed and wont admit as much and kowtow to the plethora of d20 pubs for their arguably superior design.

If you see malice in this, or some undo need to defend a big ol' corporation that really doesn't need defending, than might I suggest a nice green ginsing tea to calm your nerves?

Not so much malice as pure irrationality. Perhaps some deep breaths?

 

[Voadam]

Well the issue seems to have been sidetracked.

The issue here is that Necomancer games had an agreement with WotC. I believe NG agreed to only do monsters that were not covered in existing WotC 3e products and that were not going to be developed in upcoming WotC products that were in production (with the exception of Orcus). NG dropped some critters from the book for this reason. WotC agreed not to do the monsters in ToH in upcoming products (with the exception of Orcus) at least for products that were in development at the time. Now it appears that Fiend Folio should have been covered by the agreement but has two dozen duplicate creatures in violation of the agreement.

Of course this analysis is based on second hand statements such as Clark has posted. I have not seen the actual agreement or been privy to the development of the FF.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Entirely possible. We're however many posts in and I still have no idea why anyone would want what I think you want.

It's simply a matter that they stated that they would. If they're not going to, fine. However, having stated that they would, they haven't since stated that they now won't.

Ok, so you're upset that they don't clue you in on every decision they make for whatever reason. Gotcha. Plus you think they're a big bad meanie who's been outclassed and wont admit as much and kowtow to the plethora of d20 pubs for their arguably superior design.

Not so much malice as pure irrationality. Perhaps some deep breaths?

I think the problem is that I'm not as upset as you'd like to imagine I am.

However, I do find myself on occasion getting upset over folks that would rather argue than read what's written and take it at face value; Such people tend to start arguments that really serve no purpose.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

People should also realize that it's unrealistic to expect WotC to effectively let any 3rd party producers tie their hands when doing business decisions. If you think about it, with the lisences WotC has allowed all firms who want to, to take advantage of WotC's IP and huge player base. I just don't see how those other firms should then be able to also affect what WotC produces. (Firm A did product about B. WotC can't touch topic B from here to eternity.)

But then again, whatever WotC does causes bitching. D20 lisence isn't enough. (BTW, I do realize that WotC issued the lisence for their own benefit, not the benefit of the gaming community.)

Y'know, I've been a consistent defender of WotC. That should be an indication that this at the very least seems wrong. Simply dismissing what I'm saying as just another case of "playa hatin'" ignores that I've stuck up for WotC time after time using the very same argument as you do in your second paragraph. They led Necromancer to believe one thing, and did another. That's wrong no matter how you slice it. I don't think it was intentional, but it was careless at the very least. It's not like the overlapped critters were, for the most part, iconic monsters that would be naturals for conversion. Why not make new ones?

EDIT: I also want to add that it would have been in WotC's best interest to not overlap critters either, whether or not they had a right to do it. I mean, why not try to be aware of the market, and provide material that hasn't been covered elsewhere? Wouldn't that sell more books?

 

[Gez]

You might want to look at the SRD again...

Rats! They changed it again.

Psionic Classes (84 RTF)*

* Files marked with and asterisk were updated in the most recent update.

Dear, oh dear...

 

[shouit]

What I am curious about is two things.

First, Are the monsters different in the FF the ToH? Or are the OGC from ToH? I assume different because of the simple fact that Clark is upset.

Second,Why hasn't anyone from WoTC chimmed in with a rebuttle, either to Necro boards or here?

 

[The Sigil]

The issue here is that Necomancer games had an agreement with WotC. I believe NG agreed to only do monsters that were not covered in existing WotC 3e products and that were not going to be developed in upcoming WotC products that were in production (with the exception of Orcus). NG dropped some critters from the book for this reason. WotC agreed not to do the monsters in ToH in upcoming products (with the exception of Orcus) at least for products that were in development at the time. Now it appears that Fiend Folio should have been covered by the agreement but has two dozen duplicate creatures in violation of the agreement.

Of course this analysis is based on second hand statements such as Clark has posted. I have not seen the actual agreement or been privy to the development of the FF.

Bingo - this is the issue.

NG went to WotC and essentially said, "we want to do conversions of old monsters, but we don't want to step on your toes. Here's a list of what we want to do."

WotC and NG "haggled" back and forth until they had a finalized list. The agreement seems to have been "NG gets to do X, Y, and Z, and WotC won't touch those - and WotC gets to do A, B, and C, and NG won't touch THOSE. Plus D and E (e.g., Orcus) will be done by both."

I don't know if there was a written agreement or not, but for WotC to say, "you can do these and we won't do them" - and then do them anyway - is bad form at best and breach of contract at worst. THAT is the issue here... not that WotC can't do them because someone else didn't do them first, but rather that WotC told someone else, "go ahead and do them and we agree not to" - and then reneged and did them anyway. IOW, it's not a matter of "first to convert them" but a matter of WotC agreeing not to convert them... and they DON'T have a right to ignore such an agreement once made.

That's what's getting people - especially Clark - upset. Not that their conversions have been "re-done" by WotC... but that their conversions have been "re-done" by WotC after WotC specifically promised them that they would not "re-do" them.

See the difference?

The "re-use of others' OGC" is another issue entirely and one that has admittedly sidetracked the thread... though somewhat related, since again, WotC said their policy was to eventually incorporate the "Best" stuff and they don't seem to be following through on that policy, either.

To me, this is a problem - not because I "hate WotC" but because I'm concerned - didn't Ryan Dancey say that the reason TSR died was because they stopped listening and just went ahead and did whatever they wanted? Is history repeating itself? Is WotC just plugging along with D&D and do whatever they want without regard for what's going on outside (the use of others' OGC, for example)? Are they going to "go back" on their word just because they decide it's convenient (in the FF/ToH overlap)?

My perception - and it may be wrong - is that WotC is falling into the same trap TSR did - they're flat-out not listening. I felt like WotC was paying attention to the community - including (and especially) the publishing community - in the early days of 3e under Ryan Dancey. For whatever reason, I feel that "involvement" with the community just isn't there - and I feel like the community is still trying to reach WotC, but they've "shut their ears" for the most part. I don't see WotC employees crusing the boards here like they used to. Whether that's due to their letting go of certain people, or a new "corporate mentality" since being acquired by Hasbro, or even that staff cuts have increased workload to the point of "we can't just listen anymore -we have real work to do," that is my perception.

It's a disappointment - because I don't want to see D&D hit the TSR-like death spiral again. I *want* WotC to succeed - but I also think that in order to do that, they have to listen - and it just doesn't seem like they're listening.

--The Sigil

 

[Gez]

Are the monsters different in the FF the ToH? Or are the OGC from ToH? I assume different because of the simple fact that Clark is upset.

I assume different because WotC don't put OGC in their books (they use the SRD for that). The two beasties in the MM2 are the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[Samnell]

It's simply a matter that they stated that they would. If they're not going to, fine. However, having stated that they would, they haven't since stated that they now won't.

So what? I'm still not getting why this is an issue, especially considering everyone agrees that they have done what you want them to do: include other companies' content in their products. It's just a matter of not being satisfied with how much they've done.

But then you tell me you're not too interested in what they do in the first place. So where's the beef? They're not doing enough of something you want them to do, but you don't care if they do it. I am not getting this.