Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 813725" data-attributes="member: 1254">SKR's comments seems to echo other sources I have saying that when WotC told me they were "running it past R&D" that that didnt really happen extensively. Of course I didnt know that.I want to make a couple of important points.1. I had a very pleasant time, and still do, dealing with AV and Mary and Co at WotC. I dont believe this was in any way intentional or mean spirited.2. I think this was, perhaps, the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.3. We did not get some formal contractual promise they would not do monsters. I cant bind WotC to that. What I did was this: I sent them my list of monsters. I got and NDA for their upcoming products. We agreed to remove any monsters that were appearing in any books that were being published for WotC for the next year and a half (since I cant expect them to tell me about monsters they havent decided to use). I got a list from them and took those monsters out. I was told my list was "run by R&D" and that no book in the next year and a half would contain monsters from our list. In fact, I was told that WotC didnt really have much interest in those monsters, other than perhaps one here or there in a Dragon article or a Dungeon adventure. They knew my idea was to round up and bring back the monsters that were "left behind by third edition." I cant believe that FF was not in production when I discussed this with WotC. Had I known I would have gladly pulled the overlapping monsters.4. My issue was just this: I was told it was run through R&D, they wouldnt be doing hte monsters and that they didnt much care about them. I put in our product that the monsters in ToH (other than a handful that WotC and I agreed would overlap--Orcus, for example) wouldnt be done by WotC as that was the information given to me. Now I feel like I am in a position where someone will think I lied about that. I dont like that. I removed plenty of monsters in good faith and would have taken them all out. I love the customers and I dont want anyone to feel they got "screwed" by getting the ToH only to later find (less than 6 months later) that WotC put out "official" versions. That bothers me.I dont necessarily hold AV or Mary responsible in any way. I think the unfortunate reality is that my list of d20 monsters wasnt exaclty a priority for them and that some people looked at it, some didnt, it didnt seem that big a deal and I got the OK. My guess is that this was more of an oversight due to lack of interest in dotting i's and crossing t's by WotC. I just wish I had known that was the case or been told that WotC might redo them (which I was told wouldnt happen) and I would have pulled the monsters and not said there wont be official versions.This isnt a contract dispute. This isnt some leverage thing (though I like the way you think <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ). I have one purpose only: to make sure the fans understand that when I said the monsters in ToH wouldnt be superceded by WotC that that statement was true and that is what I was told. I dont have even a drop of ill will for anyone over at WotC and I dont want anyone here to take this as some example of WotC being evil.Clark</blockquote>

Verification