Why no love for WotC? (and why now?)

[Graf]

From where I'm sitting WotC's doing the best it has in some time. I'm certainly happier with them that I have been since 3.0 was announced.
But I get the feeling that there is some kind of anti-wizards vibe going down. They were somewhat inexplicably left off the best publishers list for the Ennies and (confusingly) some people don't like the big game balance improvements that came with 3.5 but I think they have been doing things quite well.

Some good points:
1. They're reorienting away from crunch toward fluff. Fewer PrCs with deeper details.
2. Refocus on adaptability. New, balanced, core classes with innovative mechanics; new PrCs include tightly written sentence discussing the integral parts of the PrC and how it could be adapted to another setting; etc.
3. Quality improvements. The new raft of books that has come out recently (Lords of Madness in particular) are extremely strong. They add to the game in a way that will be extremely useful.
4. Eberron. You may love it, you may hate it, but it’s hard to deny that, as source of ideas for games, it has had a strong stimulating influence. If nothing it's helped with improving the mindset of gamers by creating a lot more breathing room for things like alignments and clerics/gods.
5. Quality people: In addition to some of the old hands who are still turning in good ideas (Wyatt jumps to mind) they seem to be hiring "names". (I -think- they just hired Mike Mearls, or have I confused him with someone else).

So I'm not sure where all the "not-love" seems to be coming from. Or am I imagining it?

 

[Ranger REG]

So I'm not sure where all the "not-love" seems to be coming from. Or am I imagining it?

Meh. Ever since they bought TSR, I have a love-hate relationship with them (I still have not let go my anger over TCG nearly killing RPG in the 1990's).

I guess I have been a bit jaded since they released 3.5e too early, IMHO. That and the use of Rokugan in the new Oriental Adventures I sought for since 2nd Edition, the current lack of new Star Wars mini-free RPG products (it's been about a year), etc.

The honeymoon's pretty much over and the bliss that I was in since 2000 have given way to clarity.

 

[Turjan]

But I get the feeling that there is some kind of anti-wizards vibe going down. They were somewhat inexplicably left off the best publishers list for the Ennies...

No conspiracy here . Companies had to enter the competition in order to get nominated. WotC chose not to do so.

So I'm not sure where all the "not-love" seems to be coming from. Or am I imagining it?

The leading company in a certain field has always a following of detractors. It's a sign of success . So, don't sweat it !

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Words From a Master ....

"WotC is a hell of a drug ...."​

 

[Kelleris]

No conspiracy here . Companies had to enter the competition in order to get nominated. WotC chose not to do so.

Huh. I did not know that. Makes me feel better about the Ennies.

More to the point, I don't think I've been seeing any more hate for WotC than usual, though the Ennies thing was bothering me too (I know WotC products have been nominated in earlier years).

 

[beaver1024]

3.5 enough said.

Their recent product run haven't been that great either. Frostburn, Sandstorm, Complete Series (except for Complete Adventurer), Heros of Battle have ranged from less than ordinary to hideous. Their only book that was good after 3.5 (the only one I bought) was Unearthed Arcana.

The greatest problem I feel is the contempt from WoTC have towards their customers. Their refusal to properly playtest and proof read their products exempliefies their new and improved 3.5 attitude.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I don't think there is anything new or pronounced about those don't like wizards or their products. There are:

1) a bunch of people whose d20 company is feeling the squeeze,
2) nearing saturation of the market leading to a fatigue,
3) players & dms that didn't like the perceived heavy handedness in the revision,
4) determined malcontents.

None of these apply to me: I'm just a gamer; I never buy any supplements; the revision was entirely welcomed; well maybe this applies a bit...

 

[Pinotage]

I'm kind of indifferent to WotC in general, but there's a lot to be said for what they do. Being 'official' I tend to find that their products gets used a lot more than those from 3rd party publishers. I'm not saying their quality is great or anything, and some of it is, but there's a lot to be said for the fact that it's 'official'. I know a lot of people will disagree, but people are strange - they'd rather do something right and have it official than stick with things that don't have that 'official' feel. I think a lot of 3rd party publishers are at the point where their quality is reliable enough that it can be considered 'official'. While the Complete Books weren't all great, I'll bet they see a lot more use than most other books out there.

Pinotage

 

[Li Shenron]

Definitely not an anti-wizard here, as I still consider them the best 3ed source of books. But at the same time, my purchases on D&D material have decreased year by year since 2001. I think it's more because the game is to me most interesting in its core, and everything added later, whether still interesting, is less important.

When 3.5 came out I was enthusiast, but for financial reasons I didn't immediately buy the new books. In retrospective I feel now quite bad about the revision, because it makes me feel like we've all being used as testing mice for the first years before the "real" 3ed was released. At least I wish that each 3.0 book had been completely revised and reprinted, instead (perhaps for a good cause) they decided to go with a clumsy idea of printing new books with updated material, but leaving lots of stuff out of them. For example, it's impossible to own a complete 3.0-only or 3.5-only Forgotten Realms library, you have to own both 3.0 and 3.5 books...

Then there have been some trends going on, at least I feel so:

1) The game feels to me like heading more and more towards a combat-only or action-only game, leaving behind a lot of things about long-term management of characters which for my tastes were a great fun of RPG. As an example, spells and abilities have been generally made FASTER to use: no more bothering about taking a day off to identify magic items, now you can do it in a few seconds.

2) More and more focused given to minis and maps (we all know that). I still like the idea of being able to rely on descriptions and imaginations when RPGing, but the rules get too precise in grid positions to make that possible.

Then of course there is the old problem of errata (not that other publishers are much better than WotC). There are lots of good excuses for errata, but if you print books about a game based on rules which depend to the last +1 bonus to "provide balance", then you can't afford to print them with mistakes. It doesn't matter if it costs more, if you have mistakes in the books then the quality of your printed books is BAD, period. I'd rather spend 50% more on error-proof books, honestly.

 

[MerricB]

think it's more because the game is to me most interesting in its core, and everything added later, whether still interesting, is less important.

Indeed.

I love some of the ideas in the Planar Handbook, for instance, but they rarely are relevant in my games.

Cheers!