# Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 13, 2010)

I know I've been away for a while, but I could have sworn that the Necromancers had bestirred themselves from their unquiet graves and were going to do, if not a Tome of Horrors, something very, very similar for both 4E and Pathfinder. But now, discovering that Pathfinder is far older than I'd realized -- meaning quite a bit of time has gone by -- I find no new Necromancer books anywhere and their same old horrendous Web site advertising books that came out long ago or clearly never will.

What's up with them, anyone know?

And is there anything Tome of Horrors-like out there for various editions, without resorting to eBay/Noble Knight?

Thanks.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Apr 13, 2010)

As I recall, despite really wanting to work with and for 4e, they eventually gave up on the idea of doing so.  They got burned pretty hard there.

I know there's been a lot of talk about Pathfinder supplements, but I dunno what they've done on that end.


----------



## Greg V (Apr 13, 2010)

Conversion is underway for Tome of Horrors Pathfinder edition, though nothing has been officially announced yet that I know of. I have talked with some of the folks doing the conversion work. And we're currently in talks for a Pathfinder update of the entire Slumbering Tsar adventure trilogy (think Ptolus-sized adventure), though we're still trying to figure out if such a massive project would be viable (you can get the first one right now on Drive Thru RPG as a 3.5 pdf, but the other two have never been released). No announcement on that yet, obviously, either, but I am in contact with them about it and even exchanged e-mails tonight. And you're right, the web site home page is atrociously out of date. Hopefully that will be fixed if these other projects become officially green lit.

So basically, things are still kind of in stasis from the outside looking in, but there are hidden currents underneath that continue to flow. 

Clark and Bill post on these boards from time to time, so one of them might step in and have more to say.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 13, 2010)

They put their trust in wotc.

*I'll put this warning nice and early in the thread, considering the next few responses: try to turn this into an edition war and you'll get booted. Whether you're a 4e or 3e fan, we're having none of it.  ~ Piratecat*


----------



## Shazman (Apr 13, 2010)

And like many of WotC's fans and fans of D&D, they got burned.  Lesson learned.


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 13, 2010)

More specifically, I believe they said they couldn't accept the terms of the GSL.


----------



## bmadden (Apr 13, 2010)

Having fun with my friends and family with WotC 4e here!
Hope you are too


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 13, 2010)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And is there anything Tome of Horrors-like out there for various editions, without resorting to eBay/Noble Knight?
> 
> Thanks.




Fiery Dragon/Sword & Sorcery put out a 4E version of their Creature Collection.  The 3E versions (CC I, II, III) were fairly popular, and I have the PDF version, which seems to draw the best from the three (though no Carnival Krewe).  Unfortunately, I don't know if a print version is available.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 13, 2010)

Necromancer found the restrictions attached to the GSL to be too limiting, and too risky, for them to base their business on. I believe Clark also personally prefers to play 3e, although I don't think that would necessarily play into his business plan.

WotC's GSL allows them to pull the license with little notice. It makes for (IMO) a dangerous business strategy for any print publisher with high up-front costs.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 13, 2010)

It was a very significant turnaround for Clark and Necromancer. He went from being gung ho about wanting to support the new edition coming out to feeling he was unable to do so under the terms of the original or even the revised GSL.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 13, 2010)

Yeah, and it's a shame. I _love_ the work Necromancer did in 3e and am very disappointed that we (probably) won't see any for 4e.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 13, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Yeah, and it's a shame. I _love_ the work Necromancer did in 3e and am very disappointed that we (probably) won't see any for 4e.




Well, the ball's in WotC's court if they want to change the license again, but since I suspect Clark's objections to the first GSL offering was one of the reasons for the revision, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC thinks it has done all it's going to do for 3rd party publishers.

And it's all about IP licensing and not about the change of edition content, per se. That, I think, is even sadder. If the license had been less problematic, I think you'd see some 4e Necromancer stuff under development whether or not Clark prefers to play 3.5 or Pathfinder.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 13, 2010)

Necromancer Games was the epitome of fan publishing.  Incredibly high quality, amazing stuff fan publishing.  Clark and company didn't put out products to maintain a reliable and profitable business, but rather because they loved the game and were jazzed that the OGL and d20 license allowed them to contribute.  At least, that's my take on it.

But they still operate as a business and ultimately found the GSL to be too risky and limiting.  Which is a shame for all involved, as fans are clamoring for more Necro goodness and I'm sure Clark would love to put out more awesome product.  He was really excited about the new edition to, at least at first.

I think that there is a likely chance we'll see Pathfinder products from Necromancer at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later.  And if WotC ever loosens up the GSL, Clark just might restart plans for 4e support.  At least I hope so, as I'm primarily a 4e player right now.

PS - Shame on those few who felt the need to threadcrap with edition warring.  And thanks to the mods for being quick about shutting it down.  Clark's decisions weren't about which edition is cooler and he has always been very respectful of WotC, thankful even as the OGL was WotC's gift to the community.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 13, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Necromancer Games was the epitome of fan publishing.  Incredibly high quality, amazing stuff fan publishing.  Clark and company didn't put out products to maintain a reliable and profitable business, but rather because they loved the game and were jazzed that the OGL and d20 license allowed them to contribute.  At least, that's my take on it.



Yep. Probably helps that the cap'n of the crew (don't know enough about the others involved to comment there) is otherwise gainfully employed, and so can afford to take his time, and yeah, do stuff that's cool, simply because he wants to, or - more to the point, perhaps - because fans want it. Please though, correct me if I'm wrong here!



> And if WotC ever loosens up the GSL, Clark just might restart plans for 4e support.



In all honesty, I don't see that ever happening. Er, the first bit, I mean.* Regardless of my gaming preferences, and general perspective, it just seems a _really_ unlikely direction for [the current] WotC to head in. Given the history, etc.

Curious to see what happens, re: Pathfinder modules and/or supps. I'm sure such things would make a lot of gamers happy. 


* But if it did, the second could possibly follow, sure.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 13, 2010)

Like Greg says above, some ideas are being discussed with Paizo, and I think Clark recently posted on the Necro boards that a Tome will be done with Paizo as well.

From what I understand it was all about the GSL, how long it took to get revised, combined with the other half of Necromancer, Bill Webb, is not interested in doing 4E products.

So now they are kind of feeling "burned out" and are largely just doing a few things with Paizo to try and get the final 3E products done as PF products.

So unless Clark and Bill get their "mojo" back, don't expect to see Necromancer going full out ever again.

I would love for them to prove me wrong.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Apr 13, 2010)

They did put out three products that had been sitting around waiting for the GSL questions to be resolved:

Slumbering Tsar part 1
Eamonvale Incursion
Demonheart


These are currently in pdf form only, with the _eventual_ release in print on demand from DriveThruRpg. 

I believe DriveThruRpg is the holdup for the print products, not Necromancer (they are in the process of getting this option available for their store overall, so far as I know).


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 13, 2010)

Necromancer was pretty big in the Heyday of 3e publishing.

It's a different case nowadays.  Necromancer was able to do the first Tome of Horrors by speaking to WoTC employees who are no longer there.  Somewhere along the line I believe WoTC changed from wanting a third-party gaming culture to, if not actively trying to discourage it, to simply being indifferent.  (I know there were staff trying to work with the 3rd parties, but I'm commenting about management).  I can understand WoTC not wanting to give away as much as they did with the OGL, but the GSL was just a bit too restrictive.

I'm also not sure the 4e target audience is right.  Regardless of how you feel about 4e, like or hate it, 4e is just so mechanically different that even converting existing stuff is a chore.  

Plus, I think the people looking for 1e feel now have d20 variants like C&C to full on retro-clones like OSRIC and others.  In the last few years I think the people who want that 1e feel are actually playing stuff that is really 1st Edition D&D (or Basic, or White Box, or whatever) compatible.  Thus, I think Necromancer lost some of its target audience.  

Plus, there's been a drop in tabletop RPGs across the board in the industry.   Even if things were better contract wise, would Necromancer still be as big as they were.  Product lines from all smaller publishers have been dropping in frequency.  For good or ill, I think the market has contracted, and there's likely going to be publishers that won't survive the next decade.


----------



## meomwt (Apr 13, 2010)

Clark had some neat ideas for an Adventure Path if he'd managed to get the 4E incarnation of Necromancer off the ground. 

I would love to see him write and produce it for whatever version of D&D he wants. _The Iron Tower_ had some cool ideas attached to it.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 13, 2010)

_Brief meta-note about the above: I used the comment system for moderation last night, and after discussing the issue with other mods am not crazy about using it for that purpose. Comments and negrep are removed. We'll stick with commenting inside the post.

Damn, that syntax was tortured.

Carry on. Thanks for throttling back on edition war stuff._


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Apr 13, 2010)

I've been out of touch and wondering this myself - thanks to Whizzbang for asking. Necromancer made some great stuff and I ended up integrating most of it into my Scarred Lands campaign that ran for 2 years. We used Tomb of Abysthor alone for 6 months of play.

To Clark and those guys - From at least one guy who's experimenting with 4e for the first time now, if you do ever decide to publish some 4E material I know at least one group that will be on it when it comes out.

And if we start up another 3rd edition game, Vault of Larinn Karr and Hall of the Rainbow Mage will feature prominently.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 13, 2010)

I would like to see more Necro products for _any_ edition. As much as they enjoy that 1E feel, I think that some OSRIC products would be awesome.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 13, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I would like to see more Necro products for _any_ edition. As much as they enjoy that 1E feel, I think that some OSRIC products would be awesome.







Well the only way that would happen is if Clark has changed his mind about it being so illegal he would never touch it!

Which last time I heard, has not happened!

Maybe he would be willing to do stuff with "Castles and Crusades"? Its a pretty strong RPG (over 20,000 Players handbooks in print!) AND its so similar to pre 3E stat blocks that it would be easy for fans of those versions to use as well.

But Clark is pretty fixated on working with Paizo, so I doubt anything along those lines will ever happen.

At least Bill has written a couple of adventures for Crusader magazine in the past, so maybe he will do some more in the future.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 13, 2010)

Its this:



the Jester said:


> Yeah, and it's a shame. I _love_ the work Necromancer did in 3e and am very disappointed that we (probably) won't see any for 4e.




4E really could use some Necro swagger. Oh well.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 13, 2010)

I was very hopeful for some 4E goods and used to hang out at the necro-boards quite a bit, but Clark got as wishy washy as a politician, the hard-line 3E/PF  boardmembers  became pretty obnoxious towards any mention of 4E (though there were a few exceptions) and I finally just gave up on the whole company. Unfortunate.  

Goodman has served my 4E module needs instead.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Apr 13, 2010)

I think NG put out some great stuff.  It's probably no accident that my favorite stuff from them is mostly (although not exclusively) material that was originally from Bill's 1e campaign.  I didn't think much of the decision to follow the latest edition, whatever that may be.  (Clark often cited Judges Guild as an example, but JG put out material for various systems, including their in-house and mostly compatible stat block system.)  I still think that the best way to get 1e feel is to play 1e.  I'd still love to see NG produce some 0e/1e/Classic material, either through a retro-clone or just straight OGL but compatible, like Goodman Games has done.  I don't expect to see that, unfortunately.  I think those systems would suit NG's style perfectly.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 13, 2010)

JeffB said:


> Goodman has served my 4E module needs instead.




even though I have completely given up on trying to like 4E I still buy Goodmans modules. I think the "STORY" content has been the best they have ever done, for the most part. I have gone nuts over Harley's Punjar modules, and that Death Dealer module RAWKS!

Far better that what WOTC put out, thats for sure. Well,, early on. I haven't even risked wasting my money on their modules for about a year now. So maybe they have gotten better.

Definitely a huge thumbs up for Goodmans modules from me, especially the Punjar series and the Death Dealer module.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 14, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> They did put out three products that had been sitting around waiting for the GSL questions to be resolved:
> 
> Slumbering Tsar part 1
> Eamonvale Incursion
> ...




At last report, the PoD option will be ready in May.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 14, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> At last report, the PoD option will be ready in May.



Wow, that's pretty huge news. There's a lot of PDFs I want in more permanent form, including the most recent Ptolus stuff (which, granted, isn't necessarily all that recent -- like I said, I've been away for a while, and my previous stash served my needs in the interim).


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 14, 2010)

The PoD option will only be available for publishers that "opt in" so not everything in the DriveThru catalogue will be available as PoD (at least, that's my understanding from reading about it).

Necromancer specifically has said they will release their last three as PoD when that option is available.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 14, 2010)

Noooo, must have Secrets of the Delver's Guild and the Experimental Might tie-in Ptolus adventure in PoD!


----------



## booboo (Apr 14, 2010)

JeffB said:


> the hard-line 3E/PF  boardmembers  became pretty obnoxious towards any mention of 4E (though there were a few exceptions) and I finally just gave up on the whole company.




yah good thing you are never self righteous


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 14, 2010)

booboo said:


> yah good thing you are never self righteous




Ditch the insults.


----------



## Greg V (Apr 14, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> The PoD option will only be available for publishers that "opt in" so not everything in the DriveThru catalogue will be available as PoD (at least, that's my understanding from reading about it).
> 
> Necromancer specifically has said they will release their last three as PoD when that option is available.




My understanding is that there is some fairly extensive reformating required for the PoD option that DTRPG is putting out, so unless a publisher is willing to do the reformat or pay DTRPG to do it, that title will not be available in PoD thru DTRPG.  That said, I know Bill is doing the last three Necro releases for PoD format, and possibly the whole catalogue (not sure about that last part)


----------



## Greg V (Apr 14, 2010)

As a follow up on my first post, this morning Bill started a new thread on the Necromancer Games forums"a thought on a new book"  asking the fans' opinions about how to release the entire Slumbering Tsar Series (the first adventure of which has been reviewed right here on EN World by Dark Mistress) basically as a subscription pdf system dividing the thing up into manageable hunks over time, a single giant Ptolus-sized book, a combination of both, etc. He is also asking about the game system that would be preferred. Right now it is written as 3.5, but it can be updated to another.

So if you have an interest in seeing something like this from Necromancer Games, I encourage you to head on over and get involved in the conversation or discuss it here. I know Clark and Bill check in here pretty frequently.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 14, 2010)

I'd love to see that as a big book and for 3.5 !


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 14, 2010)

From my arm chair perspective...

Clark completely misread the market.

There was a partnership with Paizo that well, essentially has produced nothing. A partnership. No advance look at public rules? To me, that was Clark thinking the GLS was going to come through in a way he could use. Failing to take advantage of Pathfinder because he wanted to only support the official edition of D&D put him behind dozens of other Pathfinder publishers and unlike Green Ronin and other previous d20 publishers, there was nothing else coming out from Necromancer to keep them in the public eye.

Then there was the whole PDF failure. I'm certainly not saying that the last three books are bad, but the price for them is out of line in many comparissions and the PDF market generally doesn't support that type/size/scope of project. Note, during one of the other threads even PDF publishers who were glad to see Necromancer products noted that while the price/page count wasn't terrible, it just wasn't the market for it. Ramming a product out the door in a format few wanted in the first place and in a format that makes it expensive to boot wasn't the way to go.

Bless Necromancer for the ole Tome of Horrors and some great adventurers and I hope that they do manage to do some stuff that works out to their fans benefit.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 14, 2010)

In my opinion, the GSL turned out just fine, and Clark got the bulk of what he wanted from the changes. 

The sense I got was that one of his partners apparently wasn't enthusiastic about supporting 4e, and Clark was already a bit burnt out by the delay caused by the GSL negotiation, and therefore neither was all that thrilled to go ahead with the 4e projects, and those made up the bulk of the reasons for him to not go ahead with 4e projects.

Clark called out a clause in the GSL that said WOTC could change the GSL on their own, and seemed to make that the focus of his public reasons for not going ahead with the 4e projects.  

I suspect that may have played a role, but a smaller role that he seemed to emphasize in his reasoning.  Here is why I think that:

1) Most licenses that involve no money coming from the licensee have such clauses.  The OGL didn't, but that was an exception rather than the rule.  In the "real world", licenses where the licesee pays nothing usually have that clause, and Clark's probably drafted and/or approved of such clauses for his clients;

2) the clause is almost never used and is just an emergency safety measure in case of very rare unexpected consequences of a "Oh My God they published Child Porn with our name on it" nature. In my experience, it's not used to mess with licensees, and there is little to no incentive to do so;

3) even if WOTC ever did change the GSL, it would likely be done in a manner which would have little to no impact on Necro's publishing plans.  In addition, there is even plenty of defense to argue that anything already published would be covered by the old GSL anyway;

4) given what Clark knows about how much attention WOTC is paying to the GSL, he probably knows nobody is even thinking about the possibility of changing it, and probably nobody is even assigned the task anymore of thinking about those sorts of things.  The GSL is just totally off their radar;

5) Had Necro gone ahead with their 4e plans after the GSL was changed due to Clark's influence, almost all the money they would have made on those titles they would have already made in that year and a half (?), and during that time WOTC never used the clause. 

So, I think either the real reasons are more the non-GSL related ones than the GSL issue.  Maybe the GSL issue played a small role in his decision, but I bet the bulk of the reason is not related to the GSL, but other matters.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Clark completely misread the market.




Nahhh.  Market's got nothing to do with it.  Clark simply wanted to support the latest edition of D&D.  He was able to do it with 3rd Edition, and was excited to do it for 4th Edition.  Obviously, things didn't work out.

The GSL not being as friendly as the OGL isn't really a market issue, it's a licensing issue.

Potential sales of 4e-compatible product vs Pathfinder-compatible product would be a market issue.  But I really doubt the Pathfinder audience is larger than the 4e audience . . . although perhaps the Pathfinder "3rd Party" audience might be larger than the 4e "3rd Party" audience . . . but that's only true in hindsight, if at all.

And, while I'm sure Clark would have wanted to see lots of copies of whatever products he had planned, he was more interested in simply doing what he wanted rather than "raking" in the bucks.  Market concerns seem secondary to this guy (which I like).


----------



## Treebore (Apr 15, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> From my arm chair perspective...
> 
> Clark completely misread the market.
> 
> .




I agree, and so does Clark. If you do a little searching on the NEcromancer boards you might find the thread where he and I discussed that very thing.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 15, 2010)

Remember that WoTC did revoke the d20 STM license in the run-up to 4e, so there is recent precedent for them revoking a free license like the GSL.  Certainly it seems likely they'll revoke the GSL in the run-up to 5e.


----------



## Twowolves (Apr 15, 2010)

Nevermind the fact that 3rd party guys had to see the GSL/4th ed rules by around Jan 08 to get product in and out of the pipeline by Gen Con 08, and WotC didn't get it to them. 4th ed launched in April and no final GSL. For smaller publishers, Gen Con makes or breaks your year, and skipping a year just isn't an option for a lot of them. Necro/Clark is in a position to survive a skip like that, but they shouldn't have had to. 

By the time the GSL was revised, it was what, 2 years after it needed to be done in order for NG to get any use from it? Yeah, they could start now, but Clark has already stated that for his home game, the 4th ed ship has set sail without him and he's playing Pathfinder in his home game. It remains to be seen what, if any, product NG will put out for PRPG.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 15, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Remember that WoTC did revoke the d20 STM license in the run-up to 4e, so there is recent precedent for them revoking a free license like the GSL.  Certainly it seems likely they'll revoke the GSL in the run-up to 5e.



IIRC, they gave the publishers a relatively reasonable time frame to sell their d20 STL stock, but all unsold stock after that date had to be destroyed (which I think is unreasonable - it's OK to forbid new products and future printings, but destroying products is something I very much dislike).


----------



## Voadam (Apr 15, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> In my opinion, the GSL turned out just fine, and Clark got the bulk of what he wanted from the changes.
> 
> The sense I got was that one of his partners apparently wasn't enthusiastic about supporting 4e, and Clark was already a bit burnt out by the delay caused by the GSL negotiation, and therefore neither was all that thrilled to go ahead with the 4e projects, and those made up the bulk of the reasons for him to not go ahead with 4e projects.
> 
> ...




To my knowledge Clark has never personally chosen to publish under a license other than the OGL.



> 2) the clause is almost never used and is just an emergency safety measure in case of very rare unexpected consequences of a "Oh My God they published Child Porn with our name on it" nature. In my experience, it's not used to mess with licensees, and there is little to no incentive to do so;




WotC first changed their analogous d20 STL one due to D&D porn book, and then later claimed they were shutting the whole thing down and giving everyone a deadline to get rid of everything with the d20 logo.




> 3) even if WOTC ever did change the GSL, it would likely be done in a manner which would have little to no impact on Necro's publishing plans.  In addition, there is even plenty of defense to argue that anything already published would be covered by the old GSL anyway;




Except for getting rid of all of the stuff after the GSL is revoked. Necromancer went through this with both their print and pdf products at the end of the d20 STL.




> 4) given what Clark knows about how much attention WOTC is paying to the GSL, he probably knows nobody is even thinking about the possibility of changing it, and probably nobody is even assigned the task anymore of thinking about those sorts of things.  The GSL is just totally off their radar;



 And likely won't be changed until they decide to kill off everything 4e GSL the way they did OGL d20 logo stuff. Then it will probably be similar to the d20 logo period.



> 5) Had Necro gone ahead with their 4e plans after the GSL was changed due to Clark's influence, almost all the money they would have made on those titles they would have already made in that year and a half (?), and during that time WOTC never used the clause.




Presuming they had done all the work beforehand gambling things would turn out to their satisfaction they could have jumped on it when the license was revised to their satisfaction. I believe though they were holding off on doing serious work on any projects until they got the license stuff settled.

[/QUOTE]So, I think either the real reasons are more the non-GSL related ones than the GSL issue.  Maybe the GSL issue played a small role in his decision, but I bet the bulk of the reason is not related to the GSL, but other matters.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 15, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Remember that WoTC did revoke the d20 STM license in the run-up to 4e, so there is recent precedent for them revoking a free license like the GSL.  Certainly it seems likely they'll revoke the GSL in the run-up to 5e.




Yes.  They revoked at the end of the life cycle.  Clark had no reasonable fear of 4e ending at the time he made his decision to not support 4e after the GSL changes he requested.  None of his announced plans were even much more than 2 years into the life cycle of 4e, and most money is made shortly after publication and in the few months thereafter.

This was not a a real concern from a business perspective or a fans perspective.  90%+ of his sales on those products would have been completed well before any change due to an end of the GSL due to a 5e.  So yes, precedent for them ending a license, but not good reasoning for ending your plans to publish 4e 3rd party products right after the GSL was fixed.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 15, 2010)

Voadam said:


> To my knowledge Clark has never personally chosen to publish under a license other than the OGL.




Clark is a lawyer with Intellectual Property experience.  He writes and reviews and edits such clauses fairly often I suspect.  So, it's not like he is unaware that most licenses where the licensee pays nothing for the license also have a clause similar to the one I mentioned, regardless of whether he has personally published under such a clause.



> WotC first changed their analogous d20 STL one due to D&D porn book, and then later claimed they were shutting the whole thing down and giving everyone a deadline to get rid of everything with the d20 logo.




Yes, the porn type change is the kind I mentioned that would never impact a product Clark puts out, and the primary reason for such clauses to begin with.  The second one was the end of the life cycle of 3e that I mentioned above.  Neither is the kind of change that would impact any of Necro's originally announced 4e plans.



> Except for getting rid of all of the stuff after the GSL is revoked. Necromancer went through this with both their print and pdf products at the end of the d20 STL.




Again, as noted above, this is not very relevant to the plans Necro had announced for 4e.  The life cycle of those products for the most part would be done before 4e is done.  



> And likely won't be changed until they decide to kill off everything 4e GSL the way they did OGL d20 logo stuff. Then it will probably be similar to the d20 logo period.




Yes. See above.



> Presuming they had done all the work beforehand gambling things would turn out to their satisfaction they could have jumped on it when the license was revised to their satisfaction. I believe though they were holding off on doing serious work on any projects until they got the license stuff settled.




He got the license stuff settled.  The only remaining clause bugging him is the one we are discussing, which I think I have made a pretty good argument to outline why that clause would not have had any realistic business or fan based impact on Necro's initial 4e plans.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 15, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Clark is a lawyer with Intellectual Property experience.  He writes and reviews and edits such clauses fairly often I suspect.  So, it's not like he is unaware that most licenses where the licensee pays nothing for the license also have a clause similar to the one I mentioned, regardless of whether he has personally published under such a clause.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Also things change with time. Back when Clark was willing to support 4E he liked 4E as his system, as was posted lately, he has gone back to 3E. So now neither primary owner of Necromancer likes 4E as "their" system. So now they are going to continue on supporting a system they do like, which is 3E/Pathfinder.

To be clear to 4E lovers, this is just a statement of system preference, so please, no one jump on this for a new edition war.


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 15, 2010)

Treebore said:


> To be clear to 4E lovers, this is just a statement of system preference, so please, no one jump on this for a new edition war.




New Edition?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUq6N7Gx1c]Did someone say New Edition?[/ame]


----------



## Qualidar (Apr 15, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> New Edition?
> 
> Did someone say New Edition?



Now _that_ means WAR!!


----------



## D'karr (Apr 15, 2010)

Qualidar said:


> Now _that_ means WAR!!




Did you say WAR?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iffDvXTcm8&a=wgAZDXHDoVI&playnext_from=ML]YouTube - War - Low Rider[/ame]


----------



## Greg V (Apr 15, 2010)

Bill Webb has stated on the Necromancer Games boards that the Slumbering Tsar series as a Pathfinder RPG release is a go. Announcement and details forthcoming.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Apr 16, 2010)

At Greg "V".....


WOOT!


----------



## Treebore (Apr 16, 2010)

Greg V said:


> Bill Webb has stated on the Necromancer Games boards that the Slumbering Tsar series as a Pathfinder RPG release is a go. Announcement and details forthcoming.





I agree he said it was a go, but in the post he did not say exactly how, or what version it would be in, thats yet to be announced. I hope its a official PAthfinder product, it would be amazing with their production values.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 16, 2010)

Did he say what the format will be? Last I heard, he was soliciting input about whether or not it should be a subscription-based product, or a single massive book.

Personally, I'd much prefer a single volume, but I can understand the worry that sticker shock would turn people off to a Ptolus-sized (and priced) book.


----------



## Elodan (Apr 16, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Did he say what the format will be? Last I heard, he was soliciting input about whether or not it should be a subscription-based product, or a single massive book.
> 
> Personally, I'd much prefer a single volume, but I can understand the worry that sticker shock would turn people off to a Ptolus-sized (and priced) book.





No details yet.


----------



## Kafen (Apr 16, 2010)

I could deal with a bit of sticker shock if it means a new Necromancer book on the shelves. Hopefully, it is not too high...which might make me avoid eating for a week.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 16, 2010)

I'd just really like another print copy of Tome of Horrors Revised.  Either in 3.5  version or a Pathfinder version.


----------



## Greg V (Apr 16, 2010)

Looks like it's going to be a subcription-based, serial pdf with a big, hardbound book at the end for everyone who purchases all the chapters electronically.  No exact details on that, but that's what we've been discussing.

I'm converting it to Pathfinder RPG, so that is decided.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 16, 2010)

Now that I've lived with it a few years, I really can say that a book the size and scope of Ptolus holds up. I do not agree that it's tied to 3E -- I look forward to using it in C&C, for instance -- but I love having so much detail, with still so much left for me to fill in, at my fingertips. And the combination of Big F'in Book and PDFs of all the contents is pretty swell, too.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 16, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Clark is a lawyer with Intellectual Property experience.  He writes and reviews and edits such clauses fairly often I suspect.  So, it's not like he is unaware that most licenses where the licensee pays nothing for the license also have a clause similar to the one I mentioned, regardless of whether he has personally published under such a clause.




I think you are jumping to a conclusion here. This would just mean if he entered into such an agreement he would do so with eyes wide open. Knowledge and awareness of these types of clauses doesn't imply he'd find the terms acceptable for his own D&D writing and publishing work.

I'm not suggesting he'd reject publishing under the GSL out of ignorance of its terms and how they'd apply to him and his published work.


----------



## GlassJaw (Apr 16, 2010)

Regardless of why or how Necromancer is in the state that it's in (as well as a lot of other d20/3ed companies), the thing that bothers me the most is how difficult it's becoming to get certain products.

Writing and play-testing Trailblazer (shameless plug, sorry ) really rekindled my enjoyment of playing d20/3ed.  I'm sure a lot other people feel the same way with systems like Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, etc.

Because of that, I've been trying to track down some of the Necromancer modules lately and finding it rather frustrating - and expensive!  Seems to me that there are still customers out there to justify a reprint of modules like Lost City of Barakus for example.


----------



## Greg V (Apr 16, 2010)

GlassJaw said:


> Regardless of why or how Necromancer is in the state that it's in (as well as a lot of other d20/3ed companies), the thing that bothers me the most is how difficult it's becoming to get certain products.
> 
> Writing and play-testing Trailblazer (shameless plug, sorry ) really rekindled my enjoyment of playing d20/3ed. I'm sure a lot other people feel the same way with systems like Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, etc.
> 
> Because of that, I've been trying to track down some of the Necromancer modules lately and finding it rather frustrating - and expensive! Seems to me that there are still customers out there to justify a reprint of modules like Lost City of Barakus for example.




I think they are pretty much all available at Drive Thru RPG which should have a print-on-demand option soon, but finding them in print copies is getting more difficult (and expensive on sites such as eBay).  I don't think they're looking at doing any more print runs of existing works.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 16, 2010)

Treebore said:


> Also things change with time. Back when Clark was willing to support 4E he liked 4E as his system, as was posted lately, he has gone back to 3E. So now neither primary owner of Necromancer likes 4E as "their" system. So now they are going to continue on supporting a system they do like, which is 3E/Pathfinder.
> 
> To be clear to 4E lovers, this is just a statement of system preference, so please, no one jump on this for a new edition war.




I agree with you.  It's one of the reasons I had in mind when I said I think he backed off 4e for mostly non-GSL reasons.  

It's perfectly fine for him to decide he likes 3e and wants to support it.  I just wish he would say more of that, and less of the "It's the GSL's fault" stuff.  

When a well known attorney in the field says the GSL is so flawed he wouldn't publish anything under it, it can influence other 3rd party publishers to not want to do it.  But, if the primary reason is actually he just isn't much into 4e, that changes the tone of his opinion and possibly can change the mind of others who backed off based on his legal reasons.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 16, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> When a well known attorney in the field says the GSL is so flawed he wouldn't publish anything under it, it can influence other 3rd party publishers to not want to do it.  But, if the primary reason is actually he just isn't much into 4e, that changes the tone of his opinion and *possibly can change the mind of others* who backed off based on his legal reasons.




Fast forward to today, is it "too little too late" for that?  (ie.  The damage is already done, and no turning back).


----------



## Wicht (Apr 16, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I agree with you.  It's one of the reasons I had in mind when I said I think he backed off 4e for mostly non-GSL reasons.
> 
> It's perfectly fine for him to decide he likes 3e and wants to support it.  I just wish he would say more of that, and less of the "It's the GSL's fault" stuff.
> 
> When a well known attorney in the field says the GSL is so flawed he wouldn't publish anything under it, it can influence other 3rd party publishers to not want to do it.  But, if the primary reason is actually he just isn't much into 4e, that changes the tone of his opinion and possibly can change the mind of others who backed off based on his legal reasons.




Mistwell, you keep insinuating that Clark is lying. Were he the only 3pp to say that the GSL had problems and that it would be a mistake to get involved in it, then that would be one thing.  But when almost every large 3pp says the same thing with only one exception (Goodman, but are they actually even using the GSL?) then perhaps you would be better served by taking them at their word. 

Have you stopped to consider that Clark's dissatisfaction with 4e may be a result of lingering hurt caused by the GSL fiasco? That is at least just as plausible as his words about the GSL being the result of not playing 4e anymore.

Still, I think you should be more careful about insinuating people are lying without evidence to back it up.  You never actually used that word but you have implied it several times now.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 16, 2010)

Wicht said:


> (Goodman, but are they actually even using the GSL?)




Some of the later 4E Dungeon Crawl Classics modules released during 2009 appear to be GSL.  The 4E DCC modules released during 2008 appear to be OGL.


----------



## darjr (Apr 17, 2010)

level up is gsl

#3 just went to the printers!

I think Amethyst is as well.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 17, 2010)

darjr said:


> level up is gsl
> 
> #3 just went to the printers!
> 
> I think Amethyst is as well.




From what I understand, Goodman is the publisher for Amethyst, but the creator company (who, I believe, would have been the one to sign the GSL) is Dias Ex Machina Games.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Apr 17, 2010)

Just the most recent news from Greg over at Necro, just going to quote his post from the Necro forums.



> Bill is still working out the logistsics of making everything work, but we've agreed on the form of the thing in principle, so the details are still pending, but this is the general overview.
> 
> Conversion to PF RPG (including ST 1)
> 
> ...


----------



## humble minion (Apr 17, 2010)

Is there an overview of Slumbering Tsar available anywhere?  I don't own the first module and I'm very tempted by the hardback, but that's an awful lot of cash to hand over on a campaign without some idea of where it's going...


----------



## Keraptis (Apr 17, 2010)

Treebore said:


> even though I have completely given up on trying to like 4E I still buy Goodmans modules. I think the "STORY" content has been the best they have ever done, for the most part. I have gone nuts over Harley's Punjar modules, and that Death Dealer module RAWKS!
> 
> Far better that what WOTC put out, thats for sure. Well,, early on. I haven't even risked wasting my money on their modules for about a year now. So maybe they have gotten better.
> 
> Definitely a huge thumbs up for Goodmans modules from me, especially the Punjar series and the Death Dealer module.




To be fair Harley only wrote one Punjar module. Chris Doyle wrote the second one and Rick Maffei wrote the 3rd. I only mention this cause Chris wrote Smugglers Cove and Castle Whiterock with Adrain Pommier (two awesome adventures) and Rick wrote Scaly God (another great one). Just think credit should go where credit is due. 

I would give Goodman Games a thumbs up for the 3.5 adventures they put out. And I really like the 4e modules they put out too. However they havent put out anything since GenCon last year. They used to put out a module or two a month, now its more like one every six months. And they promised stuff like Punjar paragon adventures that never showed up. Considering how they said 4e was selling great for them last summer I find that really weird.

Quite honestly I was thinking what happened to Goodman Games?

Theres no DCC Tournament this year and Joseph said on the GG boards that they won't be at GenCon. Again since they said that 4e was selling great for them, then they asked everybody if they wanted different systems, then there working on a new DCC RPG - I don't know, its weird. They kind of seem all over the place.

Anybody know whats up with them?


----------



## Greg V (Apr 17, 2010)

humble minion said:


> Is there an overview of Slumbering Tsar available anywhere? I don't own the first module and I'm very tempted by the hardback, but that's an awful lot of cash to hand over on a campaign without some idea of where it's going...




Dark Mistress did a pretty thorough review of ST 1 here on EN World back in March. It's still there in the reviews section if you scroll back a few weeks.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 17, 2010)

Keraptis said:


> Quite honestly I was thinking what happened to Goodman Games?
> 
> Theres no DCC Tournament this year and Joseph said on the GG boards that they won't be at GenCon.




I find that really surprising that they won't be at Gen Con.  I just looked at their planned releases for the year and they have plenty coming out.  Maybe its just a personal decision for this year, conflicting schedules for Joe Goodman or something.  Even if 4e wasn't selling great for them, they have other irons in their fire.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 17, 2010)

Well, GG not going to Gen Con is not all that surprising. A LOT of vendors last years said they may not be back this year due to Gen Con changes announced last year.

Troll Lords announced today they wouldn't be at Gen Con either.

Glad I wasn't planning on going anyways.


----------



## Keraptis (Apr 17, 2010)

They have plenty of Stuff comming out but a lot of it was stuff that was supposed to come out last year. From Here To There originally was supposed to come out before GenCon last year and now it's supposed to come out later this year. Death Dealer took forever to come out. And don't get me started on Level Up which was supposed to be quarterly but definitly isn't even close.

Like I said it's weird only because they used to have great DCCs comming out like clockwork. Their later 3.5 stuff was fantastic. I wish they would quit messing around with weird stuff like Crime Pays and Heroes Handbooks and get back to cranking out new DCCs.


----------



## Keraptis (Apr 17, 2010)

Treebore said:


> Well, GG not going to Gen Con is not all that surprising.




really? I guess we'll agree to disagree then.   considering they said 4e was doing well for them and they have a new DCC rpg in testing I thought they'd be there for sure. Guess I was wrong.

if nothing else I'm very surprised that they cancelled the DCC Tournament. That's huge. A lot of people really like the tournament.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 17, 2010)

Keraptis said:


> really? I guess we'll agree to disagree then.   considering they said 4e was doing well for them and they have a new DCC rpg in testing I thought they'd be there for sure. Guess I was wrong.
> 
> if nothing else I'm very surprised that they cancelled the DCC Tournament. That's huge. A lot of people really like the tournament.





Its not about 4E, its about the changes Gen Con made in pay policies, etc... that they announced last Gen Con. Many small vendors were very upset and very unsure if they would be back again this year.


----------



## DiasExMachina (Apr 17, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> From what I understand, Goodman is the publisher for Amethyst, but the creator company (who, I believe, would have been the one to sign the GSL) is Dias Ex Machina Games.




There is this claim, which may or may not be true, that DEM was the first company to sign the GSL.  I would say we are most likely the first company to sign to the GSL and follow through with our product line to completion.  The GSL came out on a Friday (if I recall).  The letter was in the mail Monday.  

I read the GSL.  A couple alarms were raised.  I called a few friends smarter than me.  They took away my alarms and asked that I not call them again.    I was never worried or concerned that our IP would get stolen...because I know that could never happen.  I think the reason Goodman reached out to me was that I stood on my soapbox and said "I'm Spartacus!"  

And Goodman is signed onto the GSL.  Quick way to know that, check out the massive Dungeons & Dragons compatibility logo we get to put on our products.  I have this glossy and brilliant copy of Azagar's Book of Rituals in my hand and that same image is displayed on the bottom right.  Amethyst also proudly sports this logo.  

You may notice that the first DCCs that were 4th Edition compatible didn't have the logo.  Think about that.


----------



## Jolly_Blackburn (Apr 17, 2010)

Considering Joe Goodman is now on the west coast and no longer in Illinois -- that could have been a huge factor in not attending GenCon.
(Then again he was GaryCon II a few weeks ago...)

No idea really.

I'll be bummed that GG and Troll Lords won't be there this year. I always enjoyed hanging out with them after hours.


----------



## Jolly_Blackburn (Apr 17, 2010)

DiasExMachina said:


> You may notice that the first DCCs that were 4th Edition compatible didn't have the logo.  Think about that.




Kingdoms of Kalamar  (D&D 4e compatible) didn't have the logo either nor did we sign the GSL.

IMO just stating "4e Compatible" was as effective as having the logo. I was surprised how many copies we moved.

Now when we had the D&D 3.5 license havng the D&D logo on the cover of our Kalamar books made a HUGE difference and sold tons of books. But we were the only third party company at the time with such a license (with the exception of one other company as I recall). So it was a huge advantage.


----------



## Jolly_Blackburn (Apr 17, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I find that really surprising that they won't be at Gen Con.  I just looked at their planned releases for the year and they have plenty coming out.  Maybe its just a personal decision for this year, conflicting schedules for Joe Goodman or something.  Even if 4e wasn't selling great for them, they have other irons in their fire.




Well based on what I heard/saw at GaryCon I'd say Joe has some really exciting things in the works. He really seems to be  having fun with his products.


----------



## Windjammer (Apr 17, 2010)

I think Mistwell is definitely on to something.

But I'd add that Clark may have figured out at one point the impossible odds of doing the 4E product he wanted to release under the GSL. I mean, just compare Goodman's output to Clark's plans. Goodman's DCCs stay extremely close to the type of product WotC produces for 4E - I'm not negating there being differences (how else to explain that people buy these modules but swear off WotC modules) but I'm saying they aren't large. Enter Peterson. Peterson wanted to re-mold 4E to fit his vision for what D&D ought to be, ought to offer, ought to deliver. Regardless of edition. If you read a post like this one (emphasis mine),



			
				Clark said:
			
		

> Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. *A wizard being a wizard again* with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. *Getting away from the grid* and returning to feet. *Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. *Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. *Taking out the cheesy anime crap* that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.




you'll see that Clark essentially wanted to re-build 4E from the ground up. This isn't idle speculation on my part - Clark really wanted to do this. Check out the "4E Classic" subforum on his website, subtitled "Discuss Necromancer's developing rules supplement designed to restore classic gameplay to 4E!". 

"Classic 4E" was a failed design concept, because it became clear early on that

1. No way does the GSL accomodate this type of thing. Clark was engaging in wishful thinking informed by the glorious days of yesteryear - i.e. the OGL. The OGL was all about allowing publishers to put individual spins on the rules - e.g. cover new eras, tropes, under the d20 ruleset - the GSL is all about "play by our rules, play by them closely, or sod off!". In that light, I think the GSL's restrictive nature remains an important reason why Necromancer 4E never worked out.

2. Even if the GSL had made "Classic 4E" possible, the market would not have sustained it. On the aforementioned NG-subforum, the most frequent reactions(see also here) to Clark's product plan was along the line of either

*(a)* "Clark, I love WotC' 4E. If you publish your own rules system incompatible with the rules system I love and have heavily invested in, I'm not going to buy your product." 

or 

*(b)*  "Ehm, sure, whatever. I only play Castles & Crusades anyway. I couldn't care less which rules version you publish your stuff for - when I see those bloated stat blocks, 3E or 4E or derivatives, my eyes just glaze over and I skip them."

In short, no one really wanted "Classic 4E" in the end. Not the fans, and not even Clark & team.

Seriously, you want to know what happened to Necromancer and why, "Classic 4E" is your answer. 

And while we're at it, (a) is what broke the camel's back for Goodman Games' 4E output too. The impossibility to import GG's mechanical stuff - new feats, monsters, etc. - into the DDI means that people just don't use that material. They just don't. Which is precisely why GG has been actively looking into (supplementory rather than supplanting) alternatives for some time now.


----------



## meomwt (Apr 17, 2010)

I'd be guessing that *Necromancer Games* won't be at GenCon this year, either...


----------



## DiasExMachina (Apr 17, 2010)

Jolly_Blackburn said:


> Well based on what I heard/saw at GaryCon I'd say Joe has some really exciting things in the works. He really seems to be  having fun with his products.





I am trying to my best to attend GenCon this year.  It will be my first time.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 17, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> I think Mistwell is definitely on to something.
> 
> But I'd add that Clark may have figured out at one point the impossible odds of doing the 4E product he wanted to release under the GSL. I mean, just compare Goodman's output to Clark's plans. Goodman's DCCs stay extremely close to the type of product WotC produces for 4E - I'm not negating there being differences (how else to explain that people buy these modules but swear off WotC modules) but I'm saying they aren't large. Enter Peterson. Peterson wanted to re-mold 4E to fit his vision for what D&D ought to be, ought to offer, ought to deliver. Regardless of edition. If you read a post like this one (emphasis mine),
> 
> ...




I think Clark's ideas changed a lot. The 4e Classic idea came very late to the table. At first, all the talk was about an Adventure Path (something with gnolls and snow) and some stand-alone adventures. While the GSL was certainly a problem, there was talk of doing it as a free product to get around the problem,  but there were many other problems regarding the 4e Classic idea. For one, there was no direction in the discussions, so it was just a lot of very different people spitballing ideas left and right. Also, if you want to do this sort of thing, you better have a good, nay great grasp on the rules, with all due respect, it was not my impression that Clark had just that.

I still think that the 4e Classic was a great idea, and I also believe it is doable, at least mechanically, if not legally. But it takes more than 1 person setting up a forum and saying: What do you think, guys?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2010)

I would have liked 0-level rules etc. as he announced. Clark was one of the people really supporting 4e. He was the one who really gave 4e and WotC a chance. I was a bit sad when he told us that he won´t support 4e.

I would have bought his products just for his behaviour here at those board when there were many people who just started nerdrage (Which I believe, had an actual negative impact on the rules we were presented.)


----------



## ggroy (Apr 17, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> And while we're at it, (a) is what broke the camel's back for Goodman Games' 4E output too. The impossibility to import GG's mechanical stuff - new feats, monsters, etc. - into the DDI means that people just don't use that material. They just don't.




Whether planned or by happenstance, the DDI character builder  effectively has a hegemony over the market for 4E crunch, which has greatly limited the appeal of crunch heavy player character options books not produced by WotC.

An essentially useless 4E SRD (ie. with only the names of classes, abilities, etc ... and very little  else), has so far prevented anybody from directly copying/cloning the 4E ruleset into a new game.

Even if WotC went back to using a very open license for future editions of D&D, a useful future DDI character builder program which still doesn't allow 3PP content, will probably still very much limit the appeal of most future non-module crunch heavy 3pp stuff like player character options books (ie. new feats, powers, paragon paths, etc ...).  A useless SRD in the future, will most likely prevent something like a future Mutants & Masterminds from being directly created starting from the SRD.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 17, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I agree with you.  It's one of the reasons I had in mind when I said I think he backed off 4e for mostly non-GSL reasons.



He also said that he really had a personal desire to produce Tome of Horrors 4E.  And when that was dropped the primary reason stated was that he couldn't get interest in it from printers or distributors.



> It's perfectly fine for him to decide he likes 3e and wants to support it.  I just wish he would say more of that, and less of the "It's the GSL's fault" stuff.



I don't think the elements are incompatible.
He also said he really wanted to be publishing for "the current edition of Dungeons and Dragons".   When he was talking about "classic 4e" he would frequently throw in things like "(and Pathfinder)".  But it was clear that 4E was his focus and he wanted to also support PF along the way.

I think you are very accurate in your assessment of why his focus has changed.  But it changed from "4E (and Pathfinder)" to "Pathfinder".  The GSL is the reason it is not "Pathfinder (and 4E)".  The GSL is enough to push the second preference system off the table.


----------



## Windjammer (Apr 17, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I think Clark's ideas changed a lot. The 4e Classic idea came very late to the table.




That is very true, but I think "Classic 4E" was the final step on Necromancer Games' way out of the 4E 3pp for a reason. 



Jack99 said:


> I still think that the 4e Classic was a great idea, and I also believe it is doable, at least mechanically, if not legally. But it takes more than 1 person setting up a forum and saying: What do you think, guys?




Absolutely. I remember a sunny afternoon when I got this PDF by a guy - let's call him Jason B. in the interest of anonymity - who'd haphazardly put together a couple of "ideas" on how to "improve" 3.5. _Riddikulus!_ 
Wanna know what happened to that PDF? Two or three of us read it, no one really put any effort into it improving it,  and there it went to be never seen again. Also, and very obviously, the whole point of Jason's file was to say: "that's what it gonna be, folks - take it or leave it!". Jason's point was not, I repeat: _was not_, to drum up enthusiasm, support, and interest for a long term project.

If there's one thing we've learnt in the process, it's that such things never work. They just end up eating your time, money, and Ennie awards.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 17, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> If there's one thing we've learnt in the process, it's that such things never work. They just end up eating your time, money, and Ennie awards.




Yeah, it's a shame the hypothetical Jason didn't have e.g. the second largest rpg publisher in the world commission him to develop those ideas further, because that would have rocked.

/M


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 17, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> That is very true, but I think "Classic 4E" was the final step on Necromancer Games' way out of the 4E 3pp for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Problem was, Clark and NG did not really have any ideas of note. They had a vague idea of making something called Classic 4e, which would be more oldschool D&D than 4e. Not quite the same as what Jason did 

If Clark had thought this was doable and had presented some ideas, as well as a clear path deal with whatever things he wanted dealt with, I think things would (maybe) have looked differently. But he didn't 

No biggie here though, I love my 4e, but I thought Classic 4e was a great idea (in concept at least) and it might have been something I would rather have played. 

Of course, I might be completely wrong and the reason things never took off were legal reasons pertaining to the GSL...


----------



## BryonD (Apr 17, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Problem was, Clark and NG did not really have any ideas of note. They had a vague idea of making something called Classic 4e, which would be more oldschool D&D than 4e. Not quite the same as what Jason did



Maybe.  I think writing off Clark as not having "any ideas of note" is a mistake.  But in either case, as you said, "classic 4e" was "very late" to the table.

They had a lot of very clear ideas early on.  But for reasons both GSL related and otherwise, they got derailed.  Only after it was clear that plan A wasn't working did the plan B of a "vague idea of making something called Classic 4e" start being considered.  IMO it took time for it to become obvious that model they used to support 3E simply wasn't viable for support of 4E.  "Classic 4E" was an effort to find another model.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 17, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Mistwell, you keep insinuating that Clark is lying.




No, I don't, and please don't put words in my mouth.  Particularly an accusation like that.  If I think someone is lying, I'll say I think they are lying.  I do not think Clark is lying.



> Were he the only 3pp to say that the GSL had problems and that it would be a mistake to get involved in it, then that would be one thing.  But when almost every large 3pp says the same thing with only one exception (Goodman, but are they actually even using the GSL?) then perhaps you would be better served by taking them at their word.




They are not saying that however.  They said that for the original GSL.  But I have not seen a lot of folks saying that about the second version.  Most seemed to just move on with their lives after the first and not look back. 



> Have you stopped to consider that Clark's *dissatisfaction with 4e may be a result of lingering hurt caused by the GSL fiasco*? That is at least just as plausible as his words about the GSL being the result of not playing 4e anymore.




Yes, of course I have, which is why I SAID THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE REASON: "The sense I got was that one of his partners apparently wasn't enthusiastic about supporting 4e, *and Clark was already a bit burnt out by the delay caused by the GSL negotiation*, and therefore *neither was all that thrilled to go ahead with the 4e projects, and those made up the bulk of the reasons for him to not go ahead with 4e projects*." 

I mean you basically asked me if I have stopped to consider the position I actually articulated that you are responded to!

It's one thing to accuse me of calling Clark a liar by accident.  It's entirely another to then demonstrate you never even read fully what I wrote about it.  Come on man, if you are going to slander me, at least do me the courtesy of reading the position you are slandering me over.  I mean, it honestly baffles me that you could think I was calling Clark a liar.



> Still, I think you should be more careful about insinuating people are lying without evidence to back it up.  You never actually used that word but you have implied it several times now.




No, I have not, and I think YOU should be a heck of a lot more careful about accusing people of that without even bothering to read their entire post on the subject and with NO evidence whatsoever of it.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm glad you don't think Clark is lying.  You need to be more careful then about the tone of your posts.  

When you say "_Clark called out a clause in the GSL that said WOTC could change the GSL on their own, and seemed to make that the focus of his public reasons for not going ahead with the 4e projects.  I suspect that may have played a role, but *a smaller role *that he seemed to emphasize in his reasoning,_" you seem to be saying that Clark is being less than forthright. 

When you say, "_So, I think either the *real reasons *are more the non-GSL related ones than the GSL issue_," you appear to casual readers such as myself to be insinuating Clark is not giving us his real reasons.   

When you say, "_When a well known attorney in the field says the GSL is so flawed he wouldn't publish anything under it, it can influence other 3rd party publishers to not want to do it. But, *if the primary reason is actually *he just isn't much into 4e, that changes the tone of his opinion and possibly can change the mind of others who backed off based on his legal reasons_," it not only mistakenly appears that you are insinuating that Clark did not give us his actual reasoning but one might be excused if they thought you were implying Clark was being a poor lawyer.  

I am glad that none of that is true and apologize for misunderstanding the true meaning of your remarks and not reading you closely enough to realize I completely missed your point.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Yes.  They revoked at the end of the life cycle.  Clark had no reasonable fear of 4e ending at the time he made his decision to not support 4e after the GSL changes he requested.  None of his announced plans were even much more than 2 years into the life cycle of 4e, and most money is made shortly after publication and in the few months thereafter.
> 
> This was not a a real concern from a business perspective or a fans perspective.  90%+ of his sales on those products would have been completed well before any change due to an end of the GSL due to a 5e.  So yes, precedent for them ending a license, but not good reasoning for ending your plans to publish 4e 3rd party products right after the GSL was fixed.




Well, as an IP and Contract lawyer myself this would make me very skittish, and Clark generally seems risk-averse when compared to other publishers like eg Joe Goodman or Jolly R Blackburn (Kenzer), both of whom chose to publish 4e-compatible product without the GSL, relying on the OGL and/or general IP law.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 17, 2010)

*I agree with Wicht*

Mistwell, I've seen the same stuff Wicht has seen in your posts.  It's not just his imagination.

I'm glad to hear that you're not accusing Clark of lying.  But I think you should take a hard look at your writing style, because it often seems as if you are.

Ken


----------



## Pramas (Apr 17, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Clark was one of the people really supporting 4e. He was the one who really gave 4e and WotC a chance.




There were plenty of people who gave WotC a chance. A lot of chances, in fact, but the process dragged on and on and things kept changing. It became clear that this was a contentious issue within WotC itself and I think the GSL reflects that. At a certain point, many of us decided that even if things worked out this time, there was no guarantee the forces that opposed open gaming within WotC would simply concede the issue in the long term. This could have serious repercussions on our businesses at a later date, so many of us decided that this was the time to part ways with WotC and build up our own brands and properties. Looking at the post-GSL third party market and the success thereof, I do not regret that decision for a minute.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 17, 2010)

I've dropped Mistwell a PM; let's make sure the thread stays on track, please.



Pramas said:


> There were plenty of people who gave WotC a chance. A lot of chances, in fact, but the process dragged on and on and things kept changing. It became clear that this was a contentious issue within WotC itself and I think the GSL reflects that.



Extremely well stated. The GSL strikes me as being the results of many, many compromises, and as a result it ended up stifling what it hoped to encourage. I sat in on the initial conference call when WotC told 3pp publishers what their policy (well, the one they had at that time) was going to be; the written version was to have been in their hands within a month, and it wasn't finalized for more than a year. 

I'd love more 3pp 4e stuff, but I'm not going to fault anyone for not wanting to bet their company on a license that can be easily revoked with short warning.

what I didn't see at the time was how DDI and the character builder were going to throttle 3pp development. That caught me by surprise.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 17, 2010)

*Ddi*

I didn't see the DDI coming either.

Who would have guessed that WoTC would come up with a piece of _software_ that was so awesome?  It's the one thing I wish we had over in Paizo-Land.

And yeah, if I were running 4E, I'd have a very hard time justifying using stuff that wasn't in the DDI.  That's a big reason there isn't more 3rd party 4E support, surely.

Ken


----------



## ggroy (Apr 17, 2010)

If a fully functional DDI character builder computer program had been created back in 1999-2000 for 3E D&D that was fully embraced by D&D players and didn't allow any 3pp crunch, wonder if the d20 glut would have ever happened.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 17, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> what I didn't see at the time was how DDI and the character builder were going to throttle 3pp development. That caught me by surprise.




Many probably didn't anticipate this either back in 2008.

Fast forward to the present, WotC probably now sees the DDI character builder as a very useful "weapon in their arsenal" for tightly controlling the use of their D&D intellectual property, without ever having to make a strict 3PP license.

The management and legal eagles at WotC are most likely betting that for future editions of D&D, a fully function DDI character builder without any 3pp crunch and a useless SRD document will be just enough to keep tight control over any future 3pp D&D markets, even in the case where a future D&D 3pp license resembles the OGL.


----------



## Pramas (Apr 18, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Fast forward to the present, WotC probably now sees the DDI character builder as a very useful "weapon in their arsenal" for tightly controlling the use of their D&D intellectual property, without ever having to make a strict 3PP license.




I'm guessing they are much more concerned about another unintended side effect of DDI: the strangling of their own book sales. This has become a real problem for WotC.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 18, 2010)

Pramas said:


> I'm guessing they are much more concerned about another unintended side effect of DDI: the strangling of their own book sales. This has become a real problem for WotC.




This wouldn't surprise me anymore.

In my previous sandbox 4E game, very few of my players bothered to buy any books like the PHB2.  They all had DDI subscriptions and used it for all their character builds, instead of going through splatbooks.

At several nearby FLGS, the owners have been complaining about 4E D&D book sales nosediving significantly over 2009 (especially after PHB2 was released).  At the smaller gaming stores where tabletop rpgs are not their main business, the owners now only order one or two copies of new WotC 4E titles.  Otherwise, most of the later 4E splatbooks end up sitting on the shelves for months at a time collecting dust.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 18, 2010)

Pramas said:


> I'm guessing they are much more concerned about another unintended side effect of DDI: the strangling of their own book sales. This has become a real problem for WotC.




No, the real problem is that WoTC needs to stop focusing on crunch material and start focusing on settings and modules. Less crunch = less reliance on the DDI and more people.... playing and talking about the World of Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to the latest build.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 18, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> No, the real problem is that WoTC needs to stop focusing on crunch material and start focusing on settings and modules. Less crunch = less reliance on the DDI and more people.... playing and talking about the World of Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to the latest build.




I would love to see more settings and better modules by WotC.

But will this ever happen again?

After the experiences of TSR during the 2E AD&D era with many different settings, it wouldn't be surprising to see WotC being reluctant about going down that direction again.

Nevertheless.  Today if I was looking for better setting and modules stuff, I would probably be more interested in Pathfinder titles.


----------



## vonmolkew (Apr 18, 2010)

RE: The New Edition video:

This is why I read the forums....hilarious!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2010)

Pramas said:


> I'm guessing they are much more concerned about another unintended side effect of DDI: the strangling of their own book sales. This has become a real problem for WotC.



Never bought more than one book for our group... this time i won´t buy books until they change their stance on including errata in them. I won´t buy outdated material.

I believe this is a great part of what hurts the book sales. Why buy a book if you can´t reliably reference it...


----------



## ggroy (Apr 18, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Never bought more than one book for our group... this time i won´t buy books until they change their stance on including errata in them. I won´t buy outdated material.
> 
> I believe this is a great part of what hurts the book sales. Why buy a book if you can´t reliably reference it...




Does WotC have an official (or unofficial) stance on not adding corrections to subsequent printings of 4E titles?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 18, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> No, the real problem is that WoTC needs to stop focusing on crunch material and start focusing on settings and modules. Less crunch = less reliance on the DDI and more people.... playing and talking about the World of Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to the latest build.



Maybe this is different now in 4E, but back in the OGL days there were a lot of calls for less crunch.  And time after time the market did not show up. 

There were exceptions.  But there was generally some specific appeal for the exceptions.  All things being equal crunch sold solidly better than fluff.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Apr 18, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I didn't see the DDI coming either.
> 
> Who would have guessed that WoTC would come up with a piece of _software_ that was so awesome?  It's the one thing I wish we had over in Paizo-Land.
> 
> ...




That is nearly 100% true in my case anyways.  I do have Goodman's Book of Rituals and a handful of DCCs but things like the Advanced Player's Guide from about a year ago?  It can't be used with the CB so I'll never use it.  Rituals and adventures are about the only things I would look at a 3pp for nowadays.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 18, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Mistwell, I've seen the same stuff Wicht has seen in your posts.  It's not just his imagination.
> 
> I'm glad to hear that you're not accusing Clark of lying.  But I think you should take a hard look at your writing style, because it often seems as if you are.
> 
> Ken




It OFTEN seems as if I am? You think this is more than one topic now? Do tell, please link to them.

No. Which part of "keep the thread on track" is unclear? No more digression on how Mistwell phrased things, please, on anyone's part; he was clear afterward about what he meant to say, and that should close the issue. Thanks. ~ PCat


----------



## ggroy (Apr 18, 2010)

Holy Bovine said:


> but things like the Advanced Player's Guide from about a year ago?  It can't be used with the CB so I'll never use it.




I offered my players the option of using classes from the Advanced Player's Guide and other similar titles like Goodman's "Forgotten Heroes".  There were no takers.

Even back then, the players in my 4E games preferred to use the DDI character builder.


----------



## darjr (Apr 18, 2010)

I was considering getting PHB3. Instead I got another wotc book and preordered the Astral Sea.

I will say when there was going to be a 4e Blackmoor living campaign I had plenty of players willing to go back to plain paper character sheets and not use the DDI. They, almost to a person, would have loved for that to be in the character builder, but I had no lack of players willing to forego it.


----------



## malraux (Apr 18, 2010)

darjr said:


> I was considering getting PHB3. Instead I got another wotc book and preordered the Astral Sea.




That's my experience.  I'll never buy another crunch book, but I rather like the fluff books.  But what I have noticed with my group is that everyone uses DDI, even the people who really don't like buying any extra books.  I'd bet that DDI and the CB are a net gain for WotC.  Especially at the long end of the edition when buying normally slows down.


----------



## darjr (Apr 18, 2010)

I hope so.

There are at least 31,000 subscribers. I've done some experimenting as well, that is a minimum, I've let my account expire and I got removed from that group. Also a DDI sub doesn't get put in the group unless they setup a community account as well.

So there are quite a few, seems like a lot to me. I can still find quite a few players that are not DDI subscribers, though that is changing fast.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 18, 2010)

malraux said:


> That's my experience.  I'll never buy another crunch book, but I rather like the fluff books.  But what I have noticed with my group is that everyone uses DDI, even the people who really don't like buying any extra books.  I'd bet that DDI and the CB are a net gain for WotC.  Especially at the long end of the edition when buying normally slows down.




Its only a net gain if the subscription pays for all the artwork they pay for in order to put in the books.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 18, 2010)

Pramas said:


> I'm guessing they are much more concerned about another unintended side effect of DDI: the strangling of their own book sales. This has become a real problem for WotC.




I'm not sure it's a huge problem when they count the revenue from the DDI coming in each month. I'd imagine the monthly revenue stream is excellent and the ROI pretty high. Personally, I bought the core 3 + the FR books and after the terrible, terrible FR books I decided that the lack of any real depth to those books was enough to turn me off from buying any more. Luckily I have a DDI sub and so have all the crunch. I've heard good things about the PP fluff, but c'est la vie.

Also, in 3e I never got on the splatbook treadmill, stoppng pretty early on. I can say that the revenue WoTC will receive from my group is also much higher as we all shared the few books we purchased but now all have our own subs.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 18, 2010)

Perhaps this time around, the "yardstick" they'll use for determining when to release a new edition of D&D, may very well be when the DDI revenue starts to decline significantly (ie. too many people letting their subscriptions lapse).  In previous editions, significant declines in book sales revenue was probably the "yardstick" they used.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2010)

There is ANOTHER factor which I think might also be forgotten even if you factored DDI.

For non-DM PLAYERS...there's no reason to BUY many of the 4E WOTC books versus the 3e books.

Libris Mortis for example, was both a DM resource but also a source for feats, classes, races and prestige classes. In my group (and I'm assuming others, options could only be used if the person owned said book) The 4e version, Open Grave is strictly a DM resource.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 18, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I'm not sure it's a huge problem when they count the revenue from the DDI coming in each month. I'd imagine the monthly revenue stream is excellent and the ROI pretty high.




One word: Gleemax. Awesome character builder or not, I'd argue that they would need to accrue enough return on investment to cover the costs from development on Gleemax, the VTT, et al before it can be a true success in the long run.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 18, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Does WotC have an official (or unofficial) stance on not adding corrections to subsequent printings of 4E titles?




Other than PHB1, has there even *been* a second printing of any 4E book?

A know the "deluxe" editions of the PHB1/DMG/MM1 came out with some errata fixes included, but I don't think any other title has had a second print run.

Anyone know differently?


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 18, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Other than PHB1, has there even *been* a second printing of any 4E book?
> 
> A know the "deluxe" editions of the PHB1/DMG/MM1 came out with some errata fixes included, but I don't think any other title has had a second print run.
> 
> Anyone know differently?




Yes. Greg Leeds mentioned somewhere (around the time of the pirating debacle) that the PHB2 was going into it's second print run. Maybe someone has a link.

EDIT: It was in the Q&A here at ENworld, IIRC, but I can't seem to find it atm.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> One word: Gleemax. Awesome character builder or not, I'd argue that they would need to accrue enough return on investment to cover the costs from development on Gleemax, the VTT, et al before it can be a true success in the long run.




Er, no.

That wouldn't be a proper way for bean counters to look at it. Gleemax was a failed intiative but the sunk costs of it wouldn't be reflected on the balance sheet of DDI.

Keep in mind as well, that MTGO is _ALSO_ a WOTC-in house (now) deal. If the bean counters were actually looking at ALL electronic initiatives as one revenue stream, the MTGO would also be counted and that actually seems to have become a huge part of WOTC's revenue stream (something I heard bandied about is that it represents 20-25% of all sales)


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Er, no.
> 
> That wouldn't be a proper way for bean counters to look at it. Gleemax was a failed intiative but the sunk costs of it wouldn't be reflected on the balance sheet of DDI.




Not an accountant here, so you may be totally right on that. Where I was coming from was that Gleemax and all of the outsourced DDI development were all part of the same project, bundled together in the original press releases, and all worked on by the same contracted design company (Radiant Machine). Hence why I would consider any profits from what would eventually go to market as the DDI (sans VTT, etc) as having to dig itself out of the hole from all the money sunk on what was originally planned for the whole Digital Initiative project as a whole.

Taking just the in-house development costs of the character builder and the few bonus tools that appeared afterward, that would be a runaway success probably if measured by itself without reference to the earlier project goals and costs (and without any speculated drop in book sales by essentially competing for crunch sales dollars).

As for MTGO, I don't follow it really and unlike some other stuff I never knew anyone working on it, so that didn't figure into my thinking at all. Interesting though if it has worked into a large portion of WotC's income.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 18, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Maybe this is different now in 4E, but back in the OGL days there were a lot of calls for less crunch.  And time after time the market did not show up.



Agreed. While some segment of the market seems to want less crunch, WotC can't afford to be catering to small segments of their market. Their market as a whole seems to want crunch.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 18, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Maybe this is different now in 4E, but back in the OGL days there were a lot of calls for less crunch. And time after time the market did not show up.
> 
> There were exceptions. But there was generally some specific appeal for the exceptions. All things being equal crunch sold solidly better than fluff.







Fifth Element said:


> Agreed. While some segment of the market seems to want less crunch, WotC can't afford to be catering to small segments of their market. Their market as a whole seems to want crunch.




I'm curious as to what crunchless,or nearly crunchless products were published for 3.x by WotC... because I honestly can't think of any off-hand to use in any type of comparison for what sold and what didn't?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 18, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm curious as to what crunchless,or nearly crunchless products were published for 3.x by WotC... because I honestly can't think of any off-hand to use in any type of comparison for what sold and what didn't?



Many of the FR titles were crunch light.

Quite simply, the ones that sold less are less remembered.

But the pattern was also present for 3PPs.


----------



## filthgrinder (Apr 18, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Not an accountant here, so you may be totally right on that.




There are a couple of different ways they could have handled the figures for the loss in their investment. However, its most assuredly gone from their balance sheet, especially with DDI bringing money in. Most likely they just declared it as bad debt and have spread it out over a period of years to count against their earnings for tax purposes. which is probably the most useful thing they could do.  There are a bunch of fun and interesting things you can do with bad investments to make your statements look better. Considering the Gleemax project was killed multiple years ago, that loss has probably already been put to good use.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Many of the FR titles were crunch light.
> 
> Quite simply, the ones that sold less are less remembered.
> 
> But the pattern was also present for 3PPs.




Was there ANY 3.x book produced by WOTC that didn't have at least one option for players, i.e. a feat, spell, race, class (prestige or otherwise). Only the monster manuals come to mind and even those had things like the LA races....

Indeed, I remember many a complaint that WOTC was "taking advantage" of players by having player-crunch spread throughout ALL their books.

EDIT: Getting back tp the OP, I think ggroy is right....

If the compendium, monster builder and character builder were up during the start of the 3.x era, there would be no 3PP either even WITH the more open OGL. Throw in that WOTC actually updates the compendium with their errata....and I think 3PP would be looking at a serious challenge...

During 3.x, there really was no difference between a 3.x sourcebook produced by WOTC and a 3PP in terms of how easily it was to integrate the material into an existing campaign...

It took just as much effort to rewrite an encounter with a new CR X monster if said monster was created by WOTC OR a 3PP. Now though?

Not even 5 minutes with the compendium and monster builder....looking at easily 20+ minutes with a handwritten encounter...


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 18, 2010)

filthgrinder said:


> There are a couple of different ways they could have handled the figures for the loss in their investment. However, its most assuredly gone from their balance sheet, especially with DDI bringing money in.



This doesn't follow. Whether or not DDI is bringing in money has nothing to do with whether they have the Gleemax investment on their balance sheet. Assuming they tracked Gleemax and the DDI investments seperately.

If they did track them seperately, the Gleemax portion should be off the balance sheet by now, written off as a loss. But if they consider their whole online thing to be a single asset, then it might still be there.



filthgrinder said:


> Most likely they just declared it as bad debt and have spread it out over a period of years to count against their earnings for tax purposes. which is probably the most useful thing they could do.



That's not what a bad debt is. (A bad debt is a debt owed to you by a customer that goes unpaid.) And as far as taxes go, they may have been able to claim the loss and may not. Tax codes generally have restrictions on how losses can be claimed. I can't claim to be an expert in US corporate tax, though.



filthgrinder said:


> There are a bunch of fun and interesting things you can do with bad investments to make your statements look better.



Writing off an investment as a loss makes your statements look worse, not better. If you leave it on the balance sheet, your assets are higher, as it your income.



filthgrinder said:


> Considering the Gleemax project was killed multiple years ago, that loss has probably already been put to good use.



Probably. But bear in mind a loss is still a loss, and if you recover 30% of it from a tax write-off (to pick a number out of the air), you'v still lost 70% out of pocket.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Was there ANY 3.x book produced by WOTC that didn't have at least one option for players, i.e. a feat, spell, race, class (prestige or otherwise). Only the monster manuals come to mind and even those had things like the LA races....



I doubt it.
But I also don't see any relevance.  The issue at hand was less crunch and more focus on setting and adventures.  They *DID* do that.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 18, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Many of the FR titles were crunch light.
> 
> Quite simply, the ones that sold less are less remembered.
> 
> But the pattern was also present for 3PPs.




Yes, but FR is a niche within a niche (I know I never bought any of the FR stuff, because I wasn't a FR player or GM in 3.x), this was marketed as specific FR stuff... bot generic fluff books (which I would think are more along the lines of something like Heroes of Horror)  Just doesn't seem very good supporting evidence for a "pattern" concerning fluff vs. crunch.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 18, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Other than PHB1, has there even *been* a second printing of any 4E book?



I know for certain that PHB2 had a second run. The first one sold through rather quickly and I actually had to wait on mine from Amazon until the second printing arrived. I seem to recall Scott Rouse giving a list of titles that had been reprinted a while ago that included several more (including the DMG1 and MM1), but my google-fu failed me and I can't find that particular post.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 18, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I know for certain that PHB2 had a second run. The first one sold through rather quickly and I actually had to wait on mine from Amazon until the second printing arrived. I seem to recall Scott Rouse giving a list of titles that had been reprinted a while ago that included several more (including the DMG1 and MM1), but my google-fu failed me and I can't find that particular post.




The core books, I can see, but I doubt you'll see many others.  Same as with 3.x.

So, as to the original point - people not buying books in favor of the DDI - if you are a player and your primary reason for purchasing is your character build, why would you buy an errata-filled rule book (for $34.95 list), when the DDI is going to have everything you need from that book *and* outdate that printing almost as soon as you get it (and you don't even have to pay any extra!)?


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 18, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I know for certain that PHB2 had a second run. The first one sold through rather quickly and I actually had to wait on mine from Amazon until the second printing arrived. I seem to recall Scott Rouse giving a list of titles that had been reprinted a while ago that included several more (including the DMG1 and MM1), but my google-fu failed me and I can't find that particular post.




Yeah, me neither, but I did find the two weeks one by LeRouse PHB2 first print run sells out in a week.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I doubt it.
> But I also don't see any relevance.  The issue at hand was less crunch and more focus on setting and adventures.  They *DID* do that.




The relevance is that it might also affect 4e sales of books...you might not know this as a non-4e player, but there HAS been a complete absence of *player* crunch in books like Open Grave and Underdark.

The compareable products in the 3.x age were both DM and player resources thus, potentially, the entire group was purchasing them....Nowadays, unless you're a DM (or a person that just likes reading stuff/fluff- surely a very small niche as you pointed out with regard to sales in the 3.x era), the 4e books are NOT a resource for players....The powers book, the Adv Vaults, the PHBs and that's it...everything else so far is a DM resource.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> The relevance is that it might also affect 4e sales of books...you might not know this as a non-4e player, but there HAS been a complete absence of *player* crunch in books like Open Grave and Underdark.



OK, so if you completely remove the context of my reply to Joe's statement and replace it with your own secret context, maybe it is relevant.

I said in the very first reply that it may be different in 4E....  But again, that's just context.

Honestly, I still greatly doubt it matters.  But I don't much care.
I offered some facts as observed from the 3E/OGL days as input.  Thats all.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 18, 2010)

*DM/Payer separation and the DDI*

You know, I think this is another home run the DDI has hit.

I've never felt that it was a good thing to have feats and other player usable stuff in the same book with stuff that the DM might use to design the campaign.  I think a big failure of 3E was the bundling of this stuff.  Books like Heroes of Horrors and Libris Mortis were full of both stuff players wanted for their PCs, and stuff that it would be better if they didn't read.

Now, a person who isn't the DM can just get a DDI subscription and have everything he needs to build his character, without a bunch of DM-only stuff.  It's a good separation.  

As someone who will likely never run 4E, but who might consider playing in a game if a friend asked me to, I like this.  I hate having to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, and it sounds like 4E and the DDI make this less necessary.

Ken


----------



## D'karr (Apr 19, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> You know, I think this is another home run the DDI has hit.
> 
> I've never felt that it was a good thing to have feats and other player usable stuff in the same book with stuff that the DM might use to design the campaign.  I think a big failure of 3E was the bundling of this stuff.  Books like Heroes of Horrors and Libris Mortis were full of both stuff players wanted for their PCs, and stuff that it would be better if they didn't read.
> 
> ...




When the 3.x Eberron Campaign Setting Book was first published this was one of my biggest complaints.  All the "secrets" of the campaign were clearly exposed in the book, and the players needed to have access to it for their characters.

So in that sense I'm very glad that the books have tried to limit this cross-exposure.  

I might be misremembering but wasn't there some information from either TSR or WotC that showed that DMs have always been the bulk buyers of the products in most cases?

I know that personally I have both a DDI subscription and continue to buy the books.  There is a lot of information on the DDI side, and there is also information that is only available on the books.

So on some level WotC's DDI is fulfilling some needs and the books fulfill others.

I wonder how long it will be before someone hacks the Character Builder and creates an import tool for other information?


----------



## Voadam (Apr 19, 2010)

There were a few WotC 3e no stat books.

The Guide to the Realms was a statless timeline book for the realms up through 3e and showing a touch of things to pre 4e.

Eberron had a 64 page statless guide to the campaign setting.

I don't know if you would consider A Practical Guide to Monsters and a Practical Guide to Dragons D&D books but they had no stats.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 19, 2010)

Voadam said:


> There were a few WotC 3e no stat books.
> 
> The Guide to the Realms was a statless timeline book for the realms up through 3e and showing a touch of things to pre 4e.
> 
> Eberron had a 64 page statless guide to the campaign setting..




Weren't these published near the tail end of 3e/just before 4e? Of course, it beggars the question, would WOTC 3.0 be as successful if WOTC had divided player crunch from player fluff/DM material as they have in 4e?


Voadam said:


> I don't know if you would consider A Practical Guide to Monsters and a Practical Guide to Dragons D&D books but they had no stats.




Aren't these classified by WOTC as being under the purview of the NOVELS section of the company?


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 19, 2010)

Clark followed in the fine tradition of Gygax and spent all his money on hookers and blow 

*yes just teasing*


----------



## MerricB (Apr 20, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> No, the real problem is that WoTC needs to stop focusing on crunch material and start focusing on settings and modules. Less crunch = less reliance on the DDI and more people.... playing and talking about the World of Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to the latest build.




We're beginning to see this from Wizards. They're testing the waters with the races books and the location books. Hammerfast is really good, and I hope it's a success.

Cheers!


----------



## Dark Mistress (Apr 20, 2010)

SSquirrel said:


> Clark followed in the fine tradition of Gygax and spent all his money on hookers and blow
> 
> *yes just teasing*




But he doesn't need too, thats what he has Succubi for.


----------



## malraux (Apr 20, 2010)

MerricB said:


> We're beginning to see this from Wizards. They're testing the waters with the races books and the location books. Hammerfast is really good, and I hope it's a success.
> 
> Cheers!




To me, The Plane Below and MotPs were both very crunch light books meant primarily for DMs that really flesh out the world of DnD.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 20, 2010)

malraux said:


> To me, The Plane Below and MotPs were both very crunch light books meant primarily for DMs that really flesh out the world of DnD.




Underdark had brilliant concepts in it as well. It's interesting - are DMs getting more of the non-crunch stuff? What can you really do for players in terms of non-crunch?

Cheers!


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Apr 20, 2010)

Treebore said:


> Its not about 4E, its about the changes Gen Con made in pay policies, etc... that they announced last Gen Con. Many small vendors were very upset and very unsure if they would be back again this year.




Can anyone elaborate on this a little more.  This announcement slipped completely by me.  Did someone bring it up on the boards?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## D'karr (Apr 20, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Underdark had brilliant concepts in it as well. It's interesting - are DMs getting more of the non-crunch stuff? What can you really do for players in terms of non-crunch?
> 
> Cheers!




I think that sources like the Races books (Dragonborn, Tiefling, etc.) fill that niche.  

Adequately?  Perhaps.

They come with a lot of Default Setting information and some crunch specific to the race.  They are a little light, but at the price point, I think they are a good value.  However, they are coming at such a slow pace that I don't know if they can work.  Specially with the large amount of races.


----------



## Greg V (Apr 21, 2010)

Not to derail the derailment  but Necromancer Games is going to be announcing a new release soon.  Please stand by.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 21, 2010)

Greg V said:


> Not to derail the derailment  but Necromancer Games is going to be announcing a new release soon.  Please stand by.



Something other than Slumbering Tsar?


----------



## Greg V (Apr 21, 2010)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Something other than Slumbering Tsar?




Nope, it's just Slumbering Tsar , but an official announcement of its full release.


----------



## froggie (Apr 21, 2010)

*news from Bill Webb*

OK guys--website will be live in a few days froggodgames.com. Greg and I are a go. A few details to still work out---but here is the plan. I have to make it a non-Necro release for various reasons..but Clark has passed me his infernal blessings, so here we go.


The Sleeper Awakes!
At last, after languishing in its crypt for an age, the secrets of the slumbering city of Tsar burst forth in all their macabre glory.  Poured forth from the eldritch furnaces and crucibles of the Necromancer and Orcus himself comes Frog God Games bringing you at long last The Slumbering Tsar Saga™.
Something Stirs in the City of Evil 
Over the distant northern hills, beyond The Camp, and past the Desolation stand the pitted walls of Tsar. A hundred armies have crushed themselves against this bulwark in futile attempts to breach the city. Even the combined might of the Heavens and Earth were unable to break through in the final battle of Tsar. So why was the city suddenly abandoned on the verge of victory, and what waits for those foolish enough to enter the Temple-City of Orcus?
The Black Gates Await
Only the bravest and most powerful of heroes dare the depths of the Desolation and live to tell of it. But what happens when they penetrate that blasted landscape and look upon the gates of the very center of evil on the earth. Can even heroes of such renown breach the Walls of Death and live?
The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ began its journey years ago as a single mega-adventure for the masters of Third Edition rules and First Edition feel, then became a trilogy of adventures, then a trilogy of mega-adventures, and now finally comes to you as a monthly series culminating in a massive book with over a half million words of pure First Edition-style adventure.  Updated to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game to accommodate today’s audience of the classic fantasy roleplaying game, The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ brings you 14 chapters, released monthly in electronic format, each chapter the size of a full adventure in its own right (30-50 pages) .  Then when the final chapter has been released, the whole will be available in a classic edition, hardcover adventure book.
The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ will begin its run with the release of its first chapter, Slumbering Tsar: The Desolation, Part 1 —The Edge of Oblivion.  Then each month will follow a new chapter in the saga:
Slumbering Tsar: The Desolation, Part 2 —The Ghosts of Victory
Slumbering Tsar: The Desolation, Part 3—The Western Front
Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 1 —The Tower of Weeping Sores
Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 2 —The Lower City 
Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 3 —The Harrow Lanes
Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 4 —The Crooked Tower
Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 5 —Foundations of Infamy
Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 1 —At the Feet of Orcus
Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 2 —Echoes of Despair
Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 3 —The Throne of the Demon Prince 
Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 4 —In the Belly of the Beast
Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 5 —The Mind of Chaos
Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 6 —Caverns of the Barrier
COMING SOON 
Coming May 15th to Frog God Games Slumbering Tsar: The Desolation, Part 1 —The Edge of Oblivion in pdf format for the introductory price of $2.00.
Each month following, the next chapter of The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ will be released for the low price of $9.99.  A subscription option is available to ensure that you don’t miss a single installment.  Upon the release of the final chapter, the whole will be available as a hardcover print adventure and is included as part of the purchase price for those how purchase all 14 installments of the series or for a one-time purchase price of $120.00 (includes hardcover). Non subscription hardcover books will be available for $150.00 (when we are all done) at Drive Through RPG (DriveThruRPG.com - The Largest RPG Download Store!) . As soon as Slumbering Tsar Saga™ is complete, look for our next release!
Don’t miss out
You have waited long enough for The Slumbering Tsar Saga™.  Now it is waiting for you.


----------



## crazy_cat (Apr 21, 2010)

froggie said:


> *lots of stuff about Slumbering Tsar*



Hurrah!


----------



## Kafen (Apr 22, 2010)

> "—The Edge of Oblivion in pdf format for the introductory price of $2.00.
> Each month following, the next chapter of The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ will be released for the low price of $9.99."




Hmm, we can get a cool book for the price of two fast food meals per month. I can deal with that one.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 22, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> PS - Shame on those few who felt the need to threadcrap with edition warring. And thanks to the mods for being quick about shutting it down. Clark's decisions weren't about which edition is cooler and he has always been very respectful of WotC, thankful even as the OGL was WotC's gift to the community.





Maybe I missed something, but how is it edition wars pointing out that Clark WAS cheerleading for the new edition and put alot of faith in WOTC for the new GSL/Edition and eventually got burned/found the GSL too restrictive? Because thats the reality, and it has nothing to do with 4e nor whether one likes or dislikes 43 or 3.x

Because I recall alot of CLark's words back then, and his eventual metaculpa in the OGL board here later on....


----------



## Kafen (Apr 22, 2010)

carmachu said:


> Maybe I missed something, but how is it edition wars pointing out that Clark WAS cheerleading for the new edition and put alot of faith in WOTC for the new GSL/Edition and eventually got burned/found the GSL too restrictive? Because thats the reality, and it has nothing to do with 4e nor whether one likes or dislikes 43 or 3.x
> 
> Because I recall alot of CLark's words back then, and his eventual metaculpa in the OGL board here later on....




I suspect that the sheer amount of people talking about 4e non stop is annoying people. 

Anyway, I'm glad to see the announcement and other stuff come out of the thread. I would not mind seeing a Wilderlands update for Pathfinder.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 22, 2010)

carmachu said:


> Maybe I missed something, but how is it edition wars pointing out that Clark WAS cheerleading for the new edition and put alot of faith in WOTC for the new GSL/Edition and eventually got burned/found the GSL too restrictive? Because thats the reality, and it has nothing to do with 4e nor whether one likes or dislikes 43 or 3.x
> 
> Because I recall alot of CLark's words back then, and his eventual metaculpa in the OGL board here later on....



If you have questions about moderation, please be sure to PM the mod instead of posting about it in the thread. 

And to answer your question, it's not. We take issue with folks who are angling to start arguments or who are trumpeting how their game preference is better than others. A lot of this thread (including some of my own posts) has been the discussion of exactly what you've mentioned. That's fine (and interesting) to discuss... because hoo boy, I think WotC really did mismanage the GSL despite some extreme efforts on the part of brand management not to neuter it.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> If you have questions about moderation, please be sure to PM the mod instead of posting about it in the thread.
> 
> And to answer your question, it's not. We take issue with folks who are angling to start arguments or who are trumpeting how their game preference is better than others. A lot of this thread (including some of my own posts) has been the discussion of exactly what you've mentioned. That's fine (and interesting) to discuss... because hoo boy, I think WotC really did mismanage the GSL despite some extreme efforts on the part of brand management not to neuter it.




I have no questions about moderation, as they question was quoting somone else. I was just wondering as I didnt see any edition war items- simple facts were Clarks's early cheerleading(and later cheerleading) then his eventual post of "let me have it" eating crow thread when he finally realized it wasnt possible.

I agree on the GSL front. Holy crap did that become a trainwreck. Despite a pair of employees who tried hard to make it work.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2010)

This is cool to hear.  I haven't given Necromancer Games money in awhile and it felt odd


----------



## Wicht (Apr 22, 2010)

Crothian said:


> This is cool to hear.  I haven't given Necromancer Games money in awhile and it felt odd




You still won't be giving Necromancer Games money.  You'll be giving Frog God Games money unless I am totally misunderstanding the announcement.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> *...snip...*what I didn't see at the time was how DDI and the character builder were going to throttle 3pp development. That caught me by surprise.



Think it caught quite a few by suprise.



ggroy said:


> If a fully functional DDI character builder computer program had been created back in 1999-2000 for 3E D&D that was fully embraced by D&D players and didn't allow any 3pp crunch, wonder if the d20 glut would have ever happened.



Nothing but truth in this statement.  It would have prevented many headaches/heartaches over Code Monkey and PCGen.



Pramas said:


> I'm guessing they are much more concerned about another unintended side effect of DDI: the strangling of their own book sales. This has become a real problem for WotC.



I would wager your right.  I was able to play 4E for the first time last Friday without using a book.  Honestly except for the DM referencing a module, a book wasn't used.



JoeGKushner said:


> No, the real problem is that WoTC needs to stop focusing on crunch material and start focusing on settings and modules. Less crunch = less reliance on the DDI and more people.... playing and talking about the World of Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to the latest build.



While it would increase book sales, does it fit their overal strategy goals?  Honestly if you listen to us doomsayers, what is one of our talking points.  That WotC wants to move to an entirely online Edition.



ggroy said:


> I would love to see more settings and better modules by WotC.
> 
> But will this ever happen again?
> 
> ...



It wasn't the number of settings that did them in, it was many bad management descisions that sent them down that road.
Case in point you see them taking a chance with Darksun and possibly other settings in the future with a book or two.  I think they have a solid setting model in play that could honestly succeed with numerous settings.



darjr said:


> I hope so.
> 
> There are at least 31,000 subscribers. I've done some experimenting as well, that is a minimum, I've let my account expire and I got removed from that group. Also a DDI sub doesn't get put in the group unless they setup a community account as well.
> 
> So there are quite a few, seems like a lot to me. I can still find quite a few players that are not DDI subscribers, though that is changing fast.



You also have to remember of those 31k subscribers how many of them use their multiple downloads to supply their playing group?
That doesn't include those who use a torrent to acquire a copy with the latest patch.  Honestly that took less than 10 minutes to find and download.
So I'm betting the number of Character Builder users dwarf's that 31k number handily.



D'karr said:


> *...snip...*
> I might be misremembering but wasn't there some information from either TSR or WotC that showed that DMs have always been the bulk buyers of the products in most cases?



I think it was numerous threads around here went over it in full.  I know WotC's recent survey asked some questions to that effect as well.
I would wager it is a very true statement in any case.  
Players are only interested in the rulebooks that will effect them most.  If I never play a fighter but only mages, would I pick up a Complete Warrior or anything of that nature?



D'karr said:


> *...snip...*
> I wonder how long it will be before someone hacks the Character Builder and creates an import tool for other information?



You would see the torrents blow up with a hack like that out.  And I would wager a good many would hunt it down for use.


Honestly though after using the Character Builder the other night, I think I would have killed (or at least given money to WotC) for a 3rd Edition version or even the older editions.  Even more so if they had an import capability.

Now back to the topic at hand, I do remember NG/Clark stating his issues with the original GSL.  Personally though I didn't care as at the time I saw D&D leaving me not me leaving D&D as I continued playing a prior edition of it.
A bit closed minded on my part I admit.

Having played a full session of it, I can see it's appeal.  There were things I liked as well as things I didn't, but it still didn't grab me like prior editions.  While I won't turn down playing it with my current group, neither would I actively seek it out.  Nor do I ever plan on buying books for this edition.


----------



## Greg V (Apr 22, 2010)

Wicht said:


> You still won't be giving Necromancer Games money. You'll be giving Frog God Games money unless I am totally misunderstanding the announcement.




Frog God Games:  Looks like Necromancer, smells like Necromancer, tastes like chicken.

But seriously, a portion of all the proceeds from this series will go to at least half of Necromancer Games, and since Clark is doing the legal stuff maybe more than half.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 22, 2010)

carmachu said:


> his eventual metaculpa



Metaculpa = an apology about other apologies


----------



## froggie (Apr 24, 2010)

*Necro/Frog God*



Greg V said:


> Frog God Games:  Looks like Necromancer, smells like Necromancer, tastes like chicken.
> 
> But seriously, a portion of all the proceeds from this series will go to at least half of Necromancer Games, and since Clark is doing the legal stuff maybe more than half.




Tastes like adventurer that is....Yup--I have to keep it separate for various reasons; but the quality will remain the same, and I think you will see many similarities (just nothing trademarked).

Bill


----------



## Shoe (Apr 24, 2010)

too many pages of this thread to check, but incase it hasnt been mentioned:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/pathfinder-rpg-discussion/275481-necromancer-games-alive-sort.html


----------



## catastrophic (Apr 24, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> A lot of this thread (including some of my own posts) has been the discussion of exactly what you've mentioned. That's fine (and interesting) to discuss... because hoo boy, I think WotC really did mismanage the GSL despite some extreme efforts on the part of brand management not to neuter it.



Bitching about the GSL and WOTC policy and talking down 4e sales are part and parcel of the edition war. 

4e haters have been misrepresenting these issues and spreading confusion and uncertainty about these issues since before the gsl hit. Sorry I guess that's another bannable fact but there it is.

*Speaking of which... Admin here. Ladies and gentlemen, desperately trying to start edition wars when you've been warned not to - heck, when your last attempt got you a two week suspension - gets you booted. So use this post of an example of what not to do. Trying to proselytize "teh troof!" as only you see it doesn't win you a lot of credit.

Anyone should feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss this, or if it's the least bit unclear. ~ Piratecat*

It's frankly dishonest and misleading to talk about the performance of 4e or the reaction to the GSL, or the fate of 3pp, without talking about the edition war and the tone of the hostility to 4e and factors relating to it, like the GSL. The edition war had an enormous impact on the reception to 4e, and people's understanding of it. Omitting mention of it is dishonest. Necromancer games and the issues surrounding it certainly relate to the edition war quite clearly.


This influence was felt in many ways, but here's one example. I hope it's not offensivly accurate enough to earn a permenent ban, but I guess that's up to you:


4e 3pp would have had a much better chance of succeeding if the majority of criticisms of 4e and related issues (like the ddi cbuilder) had been presented rationally and grounded in fact, and discussed issues like the weakness of 3pp splatbooks in the face of the cbuilder, and actual key issues of omitted content WRT the GSL SRD (such as deities and certain races). 

There are many, many isues that have emerged since 4e and the gsl were released, that could have been recognised much earlier- take a look at the closing comments from One Bad Egg as an example of the kinds of issues I mean. I'm not suggesting that those guys support my argument, but they point out key issues with 4e 3pp, and these are issues that more people could have been aware of earlier if rational discussion had been the order of the day.

Time and time again we hear from 3pp people who were blindsided by issues which, in hindsight, should have been obvious to many of us. There are many reasons why these issues were not more commonly recognised, and the edition war is certainly one of the big reasons.

Then as now, criticism of 4e was dominated by 4e-hating edition warriors who were not rational, often ignorant of the facts, or simply dishonest in their tirades. The majority of criticism was unfounded and drowned out real efforts to critique the system and the issues relating to it, like the GSL and ddi. There are any number of legitimate criticmsms to be made against 4e, GSL, ect, but no matter what people try to pretend, these were not the criticisms being leveled by the majority of people who were criticising 4e early on- they still aren't.

In turn, this meant that people considering for isntance, 3pp for 4e, were far less able to find good info, and may also have been sidetracked by many of the faux criticisms presented. And both sides of the edition war contributed to this- by seeing these dodgy criticisms refuted(as was commonly the case), people considering or pursuing 3pp may have felt that they had a good grasp of the criticisms of 4e, when in reality there were many issues they remained oblivious to, or neglected.

This was particularly bad in the GSL arguments, where the gamut ranged from legitimate criticism, to bizzare conspracy theories, to people flipping out about clauses that were in fact standard legal language for pretty much any contract. Finding real info in that mess was extremly difficult- people are still arguing about it on this thread! 

There have been improvements over time, for instance the thread about what kind of products people are interested in buying from 4e 3pp providers. But these are a minority signal in the noise that is the edition war- and that includes elements of it that the enworld mods apparently don't recognise.

If you're going to have a real conversation about the GSL, 3pp, any of it, then you need to talk about the edition wars. But please, continue to censor frank discussion of the issue, because heaven forbid we recognise some of these issues, put some of the false criticisms to bed, and actually make it easier for somebody to publish 3pp for 4e.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 24, 2010)

I really don't think the GSL complaints had ANYTHING to do with the edition war.  People were arguing over it before anybody even saw the changes to the game.  

Some of the anger was probably from what I call the "OGL advocates", those that see the OGL as a movement or a virtue in itself rather than a simple license to use content.  But that is separate from the edition wars.  From what I remember, the OGL/GSL/WoTC controversies happened 6 months before the game was actually released.  I remember being perplexed at the fact that people were arguing about the game before we had enough public knowledge of what the game would actually be like.

And I think blaming the edition war on the state of the business is ignoring the fact that most of the third party businesses know enough not to listen to the extreme polarities of the fans, but rather do what's good for the businesses.  I doubt many of the major publishers held off on 4e because of people complaining on the Internet.  In many cases, they didn't even realize how sweeping the changes would be as they weren't given advance copies of the rules.

The fact that there is a so-called edition war shows that WoTC, for better or for worse, made decisions on the future of D&D that caused this environment.  They chose to make a lot of changes to the core systems.  They chose to engage in internal waffling over what to do about licensing and 3pp.  They chose to be less communicative over the edition than the culture that released 3e did.  I think it's less likely these edition wars are the cause of the problems but rather a symptom of several mistakes WoTC made.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 24, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> 4e haters have been misrepresenting these issues and spreading confusion and uncertainty about these issues since before the gsl hit.




Actually, 4E haters really don't have to misrepresent anything regarding the GSL fiasco.

It was a colossal WotC failure.

Can you imagine if Paizo, Green Ronin, and Necromancer had been releasing product from the start with 4E?  What would the landscape look like today?


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 24, 2010)

I enjoy 4th edition.

The GSL was a fiasco.

Yet, I am not a hater.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 24, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> If you're going to have a real conversation about the GSL, 3pp, any of it, then you need to talk about the edition wars. But please, continue to censor frank discussion of the issue, because heaven forbid we recognise some of these issues, put some of the false criticisms to bed, and actually make it easier for somebody to publish 3pp for 4e.




Do I follow you correctly that 
1) The heated debate over 4e resulted in a bad GSL and thus less 3pp for 4e.
2) The solution to this is to continue with the heated debate so that people can finally understand how wonderful it would be to use the GSL and publish 3pp 4e material.

Or are you really saying the moderators should quell any invalid criticism of 4e and the GSL while encouraging the rational 4e supporters who are only pointing out the logic and reasonability of their positions? In which case, how do the moderators determine which are the haters and which have the legitimate complaints?


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 24, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Actually, 4E haters really don't have to misrepresent anything regarding the GSL fiasco.
> 
> It was a colossal WotC failure.




I doubt WotC thinks it is a failure. I think they have the 3pp market just where they want it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 24, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Actually, 4E haters really don't have to misrepresent anything regarding the GSL fiasco.
> 
> It was a colossal WotC failure.
> 
> Can you imagine if Paizo, Green Ronin, and Necromancer had been releasing product from the start with 4E?  What would the landscape look like today?




Chances of Green Ronin and Paizo doing product for 4e regardless of the GLS aren't 100% thought. GR learned a huge lesson with 3.5 and Paizo learned about license changes with the yanking of Dragon/Dungeon.

There was quite a few threads where Green Ronin noted that they were 'done' with works licensed off someone else's priority system and have been working hard to prove that with their own variants (True 20, Mutants and Masterminds) and support for their in-house settings (Fire and Ice, Dragon Age) as opposed to NEW material for the OGL. Hopefully the Freeport Pathfinder version does well for them.


----------



## malraux (Apr 24, 2010)

I do wonder why it is that we get so much spam for nike shoes here.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 24, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Chances of Green Ronin and Paizo doing product for 4e regardless of the GLS aren't 100% thought. GR learned a huge lesson with 3.5 and Paizo learned about license changes with the yanking of Dragon/Dungeon.




I agree.  The license would have to have been structured in such a way that protected those who participated (ala the OGL).  Any kind of termination language would likely have given the 3pps pause (which, of course, ultimately is the reason why many aren't participating).


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 24, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I doubt WotC thinks it is a failure. I think they have the 3pp market just where they want it.




I think they have the 4E 3pp where they want it, yes.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 24, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> I think they have the 4E 3pp where they want it, yes.




WotC's intentions are to have the 3PP companies only really producing modules?


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 24, 2010)

ggroy said:


> WotC's intentions are to have the 3PP companies only really producing modules?




Modules or niche stuff that likely wouldn't sell as well as desired for them, yes.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 24, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Modules or niche stuff that likely wouldn't sell as well as desired for them, yes.




Even the top 4E 3pp module producer (Goodman) has been on a slower release schedule, compared to their 3.5E heydays (ie. Dungeon Crawl Classics).

A conspiracy theorist could argue that the 4E 3pp market is no longer viable, even for the top dog.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 24, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> I think they have the 4E 3pp where they want it, yes.




I think it is the only 3pp market they care about. I doubt they care about the 3 guys in a basement who still produce stuff for 3.5 or the rather small companies that produce 3pp products for Pathfinder. 

Of course, if you still count Paizo as a 3PP to D&D, they might care somewhat more about that market. But as far as I am concerned, Paizo has their own brand and should no longer be counted as a 3PP.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 24, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I doubt WotC thinks it is a failure. I think they have the 3pp market just where they want it.





That may very well be correct. But from a consumer POV, it was an extreme failure. Without OGL, I dont think I'd have been back and stayed back this time around. Without OGL, one could argue a bit that 4e might not have taken the road it took...


----------



## Filcher (Apr 24, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> I enjoy 4th edition.
> 
> The GSL was a fiasco.
> 
> Yet, I am not a hater.




Ditto. 

A chalk my vote up for "the DDI killed the 3pp star."


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 24, 2010)

*DDI and the GSL*

It seems to me that Hasbro wanted a more dominant role in the 4E market than they had with 3E, so they tried to use licensing (IE the GSL) to enforce a more marginal position supporting 4E, combined with an abandonment of 3E, on third parties. 

The funny thing is, having the DDI alone would have been sufficient to let Hasbro meet its first goal.  And with a lot less negative PR.  

Think what would have happened to a 3rd party company that signed the GSL.

They would have been forbidden for producing OGL content.  In addition, their 4E content wouldn't be allowed on the DDI, which , because Hasbro did such a great job on the DDI , would mean that DMs would be reluctant to buy it.  Those two factors combined would, in my opinion, be pretty much a death sentence.

Ken


----------



## xechnao (Apr 24, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> snip




If 4e were OGL wouldn't a 3pp be able to build applications like the ones of DDI?


----------



## Blackbrrd (Apr 24, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Even the top 4E 3pp module producer (Goodman) has been on a slower release schedule, compared to their 3.5E heydays (ie. Dungeon Crawl Classics).
> 
> A conspiracy theorist could argue that the 4E 3pp market is no longer viable, even for the top dog.



I don't think the success of Goodman Games 4e modules has anything to do with anything but the quality of the modules. I have browsed a few (5-6) of them and they were an uninspiring lot in my opinion.

The only 4e modules I have seen that aren't dungeon crawls or designed as a dungeon crawl would be is from the WotBS campaign. I am running WotBS, but I have time for one more campaign with a partially* different group and I would love something to run without too much prep time. 

(I ran parts of the first module series from Wizards and parts of Scales of War. They were OK, but I would like something but a dungeon crawl. It's uninspiring and dungeon crawls got killed for me after running 11 levels of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in dnd 3.0)

*Some of the players are in both groups.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 24, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Modules or niche stuff that likely wouldn't sell as well as desired for them, yes.




Which, if you remember, was how the original OGL was sold to the brass by Ryan D.

It would be a win win for everyone...apparently in WOTC's eyes, it became a win for everyone ELSE....


----------



## Wicht (Apr 24, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> It would be a win win for everyone...apparently in WOTC's eyes, it became a win for everyone ELSE....




It is unfortunately true that many people view the gains of others as indicative of a loss on their part.  Happily there are still companies out there in the RPG community that are glad to see others supporting them and encourage the growth of competition, veiwing the gaming community as just that:  a community.  And communities thrive _and grow_ best when those within are willing to nurture, support and encourage others in that same community.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 24, 2010)

xechnao said:


> If 4e were OGL wouldn't a 3pp be able to build applications like the ones of DDI?




In my opinion (and I am a software developer, but not a web developer), none of the 3pp companies could pull off something like the DDI.  They lack the in-house programming skills to pull it off, and the money to outsource it.

Keep in mind that the DDI followed several failed attempts on the part of WoTC to pull off this sort of thing.  It's a very difficult project to attempt.

Ken


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 24, 2010)

The OGL part is, I think, really overrated in making the determination.

First of all, considering all the changes in the game system, I think that has more of an effect on whether or not players have chosen the game.  If you're choosing to play a game solely on how it is licensed, I think that's a minority viewpoint and kind of missing the point of the game--to have fun.  The OGL or lack of it does not affect my ability to read, play, or create for the game.  The only thing it does is allow me freedom to publish commercially.  

I have a feeling some of these larger publishers might have looked at the game system and said "no", just because it changed or it invalidated their prior stuff.  It sounds like Bill Webb might have been one of them, though I am not certain of that.  I think it would be very hard for Necromancer Games to do a "1e feel" style of publishing under the new rules, since the new rules basically change a lot of the familiar paradigms.  

Secondly, I find the failure of the OGL ironic in the way Ryan actually promoted one element of it.  He had said that it protected D&D because if the company would never radically change D&D because if they did, the public would likely reject them and go with the people who preserved the culture.  Some of that did happen, but it was so minor it proved Ryan misjudged the audience and/or the power of the brand or the official channel.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 24, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> In my opinion (and I am a software developer, but not a web developer), none of the 3pp companies could pull off something like the DDI.  They lack the in-house programming skills to pull it off, and the money to outsource it.
> 
> Keep in mind that the DDI followed several failed attempts on the part of WoTC to pull off this sort of thing.  It's a very difficult project to attempt.
> 
> Ken




Agreed.  Software development is hard work, and can be prone to many challenges--missing deadlines, bugs, etc.  The Tabletop game design has a slim fraction of the money available to the computer game industry or the software development industry.  

If you don't have an in-house development staff, you are going to pay high contractor fees.  If you try to outsource to the cheapest country, you are likely to find a lot of problems unless you hire some expensive managers who can really create a functional specification that is detailed in an immense way.  The language barrier prevents you from depending on the software developers to "fill in the gaps", leading to misunderstandings.  (Sometimes a programmer can double as an analyst, because in many cases people don't know how to communicate all of their needs to the developers in an efficient way).

I think only WoTC could even think of affording an in-house staff.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 24, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> The OGL part is, I think, really overrated in making the determination.
> 
> First of all, considering all the changes in the game system, I think that has more of an effect on whether or not players have chosen the game.  If you're choosing to play a game solely on how it is licensed, I think that's a minority viewpoint and kind of missing the point of the game--to have fun.  The OGL or lack of it does not affect my ability to read, play, or create for the game.  The only thing it does is allow me freedom to publish commercially.




I think you do a disservice to the affect of the OGL.  Open sharing among creative people fosters creativity.  By having access to a plethora of other people's work I am more inspired to create myself, not less.  

I also think you underestimate the number of people that appreciate the OGL.  It is always dangerous to assume that those that disagree with your viewpoint are a fringe minority. I recognize there are plenty of people that couldn't care less about the OGL, but there are plenty of us who really like it as well.


----------



## malraux (Apr 24, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> In my opinion (and I am a software developer, but not a web developer), none of the 3pp companies could pull off something like the DDI.  They lack the in-house programming skills to pull it off, and the money to outsource it.
> 
> Keep in mind that the DDI followed several failed attempts on the part of WoTC to pull off this sort of thing.  It's a very difficult project to attempt.
> 
> Ken




I suspect that with a bounded set of material, you could get a decent character program.  The reasons the 3e ones sucked for the most part was dealing with the constant influx of new classes, spell, and items.


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 24, 2010)

Pramas said:


> I'm guessing they are much more concerned about another unintended side effect of DDI: the strangling of their own book sales. This has become a real problem for WotC.



I have to say I find it very hard to believe that no-one in WotC realised what the impact would be. I can't conceive of any pre-DDI strategy meeting *not* asking itself that question almost before the door was shut.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 24, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think you do a disservice to the affect of the OGL.  Open sharing among creative people fosters creativity.  By having access to a plethora of other people's work I am more inspired to create myself, not less.




I'm going to have to disagree with this, simply for the same reasons I see a rapper sampling a song as less creative as the guy who knows how to play an instrument and actually composes the new music.  It is simply much harder to do, and there's more work and sweat involved.  I am much more impressed by the people who come up with something new than I am with the people who just copy 95% of the OGL SRD and just add a few house rules.  



> I also think you underestimate the number of people that appreciate the OGL.  It is always dangerous to assume that those that disagree with your viewpoint are a fringe minority. I recognize there are plenty of people that couldn't care less about the OGL, but there are plenty of us who really like it as well.




I'm just looking at the facts involved.

While the OGL is being used for other games, it is not being used for major releases.  RuneQuest and Traveller are probably the biggest examples, but they are games that have a hardcore audience and they are probably hoping for more 3pp acceptance.  There are some other minor games but most are indy-sized, or based on other rulesets that were open gaming already such as FUDGE/Fate.  White Wolf hasn't moved Exalted or nWOD to that system.  Neither has Games Workshop adopted it.  The major players using OGL are those whose games are based on D&D.

The OGL camp has been relatively quiet.  ENWorld was the official forum for OGL discussions after Ryan abandoned the Open Gaming Foundation.  The amount of correspondance on the mailing list was a lot more active.

If the OGL was a more powerful force, then Ryan would have been right and we would have seen more resistance to changes to 4e, and we would have seen more publishers try to take over the 3e ruleset.  Instead, I only see one major player--Pathfinder.  

I did not say "fringe minority", however, I think the OGL is being overrated in its significance towards the general gaming public.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 25, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think you do a disservice to the affect of the OGL. Open sharing among creative people fosters creativity. By having access to a plethora of other people's work I am more inspired to create myself, not less.




One can argue that 4e might not have come about the way it had without OGL.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with this, simply for the same reasons I see a rapper sampling a song as less creative as the guy who knows how to play an instrument and actually composes the new music.  It is simply much harder to do, and there's more work and sweat involved.  I am much more impressed by the people who come up with something new than I am with the people who just copy 95% of the OGL SRD and just add a few house rules.




I'm not talking about sampling and copying.  I'm talking about building on the work of others and feeding off the work of others.  The Cthulhu Mythos is an excellent example of this.  

One guy, we'll call him Howard, has a story.  It inspires someone to respond with another story.  

Now Howard, at this point, could say, "No fair, make your own stuff up." at which point the creativity is thwarted.  But instead, Howard says, "Cool, write some more, and here, I'll respond to your story."  Fifty years later and there is a library of work, all built off of a shared world. If Howard had said "Write your own stuff," instead of a library we might have a single volume which we could read.

Likewise, sure there are some people in the OGL (and we'll just stick with d20) who might just copy what someone else wrote and then add their own 5%.  But thats not what most of the really good writers are doing.  They see a monster here they like and use it.  They see a template from Advanced Bestiary and they use that.  And then they blend it all together in a neat way and presto, you have a new piece of work that might inspire someone else to come along and add to it.  That's going on all the time in the OGL world.  Its what makes Paizo's work so good.  Moreover, they not only admit where they got the idea but encourage you to go support the guy that came up with the other idea and if you want, make your own and add to the rules and the monsters.  

So while, yes, the guys that create entirely from scratch, all on their own, do more work, the communities that support and foster each other are more productive.  Those musicians writing their own work: I bet a lot of them hang around other musicians and swap ideas.  The great masters of old: ask yourself whether they worked in a vaccuum, locked in a closet or whether they surrounded themselves with teachers, students, friends, patrons and others? 

Speaking of patrons, the patronage projects are excellent examples of this idea.  You get a lot of people paying to be involved and we're all sharing ideas and one guy has this cool idea and another that and someone critiques the first and makes it better and another takes the new idea and is inspired to submit an adventure idea which everyone likes.  The creativity involved is communal and 100 people brainstorming will normally outthink any single individual, no matter how good that individual is.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with this, simply for the same reasons I see a rapper sampling a song as less creative as the guy who knows how to play an instrument and actually composes the new music.  It is simply much harder to do, and there's more work and sweat involved.  I am much more impressed by the people who come up with something new than I am with the people who just copy 95% of the OGL SRD and just add a few house rules.



I think comparing Mutants and Masterminds or Spycraft to sampling in a rap song is absurd.  
If we are going to use this kind of tortured analogy, I'd say calling those (and many other) products "less creative" is like saying The Beatles were not creative because they used guitars and drums rather than inventing whole new instruments.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I think comparing Mutants and Masterminds or Spycraft to sampling in a rap song is absurd.




I don't know about Spycraft, but according to Wikipedia, this is the origin of M&M.



> In the late 1990s, Steve Kenson had an idea for a superhero setting that he had been contracted to produce. Through a series of misfortunes, the project fell through and he was left with a partially completed manuscript. Shopping it around to various publishers, none were interested (superhero games had lost their popularity)[10] until he talked to Chris Pramas (President of Green Ronin Publishing) about the setting.
> 
> Chris made the offer to publish the setting if Steve would also create a superhero game system based on the d20 System. Steve agreed and got to work. Over time, it became clear to him that the game would need to be released under the Open Game License. Releasing the game under the d20 Standard Trademark License, as originally planned, would have prohibited the inclusion of ability generation and character advancement rules. Presenting a complete game was seen as taking precedence over having a d20 logo on the product, so the decision was made to use the OGL.




This tells me that there was already a game (or at least roots of it) in place that did not derive from the SRD, and what they did is retro-fit it to work with the OGL.  (At the most charitable, it was just a setting).  In other words, all the OGL was for that creation was a marketing gimmick.  You saw the same thing happen to Deadlands and Silver Age Sentinels.  This is a case of the OGL/d20 compatibility used as a marketing gimick to get sales, not a case of it "encouraging innovation".

Regardless of M&M and Spycraft, most of the d20/OGL products were mostly using the SRD as a base, D&D clones, etc.  

I have no problem with people who like the OGL, but people like to make a lot of Logical Fallacies, by stating that its existence along created a rise in the market, that it was the cause of innovation, etc?  Was it the OGL itself that was the cause for 3pp rise, or people taking advantage of D&D's market share and compatibility? Was Mearls hired because of the OGL, or like those people before him they were hired because they were a good game designer?  Did people buy products because of the OGL, or because they were supplements to D&D?

Too many people IMO assume the OGL was the cause for all of this.  I think it's not that simple.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> I, but people like to make a lot of Logical Fallacies, by stating that its existence along created a rise in the market, that it was the cause of innovation, etc?  Was it the OGL itself that was the cause for 3pp rise, or people taking advantage of D&D's market share and compatibility? Was Mearls hired because of the OGL, or like those people before him they were hired because they were a good game designer?  Did people buy products because of the OGL, or because they were supplements to D&D?






You would argue that Mearls would have been hired by WotC regardless of his OGL work.  I would argue that you couldn't prove it one way or another because the reality is that Mearls did OGL work and was noticed because of it.  "What ifs" are all very well for fiction but have no real value in determining actual history.  

You ask whether people bought products because of the OGL or because they were supplements to D&D and I would answer, "yes."  They are not mutually incompatible ideas.  

I think it almost irrefutably true that the OGL produced a lot of active 3pp books and creativity.  I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.  Its all very well and good to say those same people would have been just as creative without the OGL but I don't think you can prove it.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> ... but people like to make a lot of Logical Fallacies...



You are making a rather major logical fallacy right here.
A lot of people have made a lot of ideas for super heroes RPGs for a very long time.

The incarnation of Mutants and Masterminds that is a huge hit was built on the spine of the D20 system through the OGL.  I have no doubt whatsoever that Steve Kenson was thinking about it long before he ever heard of the OGL, or that there ever even was an OGL or D20 system to hear of.  But the final M&M that was a huge hit was both highly creative and very much a result of the OGL.


----------



## Pramas (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> This tells me that there was already a game (or at least roots of it) in place that did not derive from the SRD, and what they did is retro-fit it to work with the OGL.  (At the most charitable, it was just a setting).  In other words, all the OGL was for that creation was a marketing gimmick.




That is not correct. What Steve had designed was a city setting. Gold Rush Games was originally supposed to publish it for the Hero System but it never happened. I told Steve I'd publish it if he designed a d20 superhero game. He started with the D&D3 rules as a base but obviously many changes were required to suit the genre. During the design process Steve asked me if he should be more concerned with sticking to the d20 rules or emulating the genre. I told him genre should win every time. When Steve was done, it was clear that M&M would be better served as a stand alone game, so we took the gamble of forgoing the d20 logo. This was at a time when most folks thought you had to have the logo to have a successful OGL product. Turns out they were wrong.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 25, 2010)

MnM was a revelation to me. There was a long thread here about whether a really good superhero game was even possible under d20 rules, and the general conclusion was "nope." Steve, and GR, showed that conclusion to be absurdly wrong.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 25, 2010)

Wicht said:


> It is unfortunately true that many people view the gains of others as indicative of a loss on their part. Happily there are still companies out there in the RPG community that are glad to see others supporting them and encourage the growth of competition, veiwing the gaming community as just that: a community. And communities thrive _and grow_ best when those within are willing to nurture, support and encourage others in that same community.




So you're basiucally arguing that WOTC should be happy that giving up basically control of its house system should be seen as a positive when it does NOT lead to an increase in their bottom line?

Mutants and Masterminds is widely lauded but at the same time, how does MnM help WOTC sell more PHBs et al.

Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Mutants and Masterminds is widely lauded but at the same time, how does MnM help WOTC sell more PHBs et al.
> 
> Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.




Having a risky option produced by someone else that turned out to be a large hit provides more people using the d20 engine as their gaming system of choice, tying them to WotC's larger overall product line. For every M&M, there were numerous risky products that flopped, and WotC didn't have to foot the bill for any of those. Thus, the market is expanded using a system that WotC produces that therefore becomes the industry standard, and WotC has to invest no actual capital in doing so.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 25, 2010)

Storm Raven said:


> Having a risky option produced by someone else that turned out to be a large hit provides more people using the d20 engine as their gaming system of choice, tying them to WotC's larger overall product line. For every M&M, there were numerous risky products that flopped, and WotC didn't have to foot the bill for any of those. Thus, the market is expanded using a system that WotC produces that therefore becomes the industry standard, and WotC has to invest no actual capital in doing so.




But that's the thing...D&D was ALREADY the standard in the RPG marketplace. Even during the dark days before WOTC's buying TSR, the D&D game (and engine) ate up the majority of the market. 

Even white wolf I dont think in its heyday came close to dislodging D&D at its lowest ebb...If this had been WHITE WOLF that came up with the OGL, I think it would be a brilliant way to increase market share to BECOME #1.

I *GET* the concept of the vision of Ryan D. That WOTC would focus on the high end moneymakers like the rules books and that others would benefit from producing adventures et al.

I'm just skeptical that say d20 Conan does more for WOTC than say GURPS Conan.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> While the OGL is being used for other games, it is not being used for major releases.  *RuneQuest* and Traveller are probably the biggest examples




Mongoose Runequest 1 (MRQ1) had an SRD that was OGL.

Main Page - MRQWiki


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> So you're basiucally arguing that WOTC should be happy that giving up basically control of its house system should be seen as a positive when it does NOT lead to an increase in their bottom line?
> 
> Mutants and Masterminds is widely lauded but at the same time, how does MnM help WOTC sell more PHBs et al.
> 
> Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.





No, I am arguing that those who look at it as a potential loss are missing the big picture. 

Firstly, WotC did not give up control of Dungeons and Dragons, they simply allowed other people to build upon their idea. 

Secondly, how do you know it did not increase the bottom line? The more people brought into RPGs the more people who are going to eventually give the standard a try.  Communities do not grow by being rigid and divided.  They grow by people working together.  It is long term detrimental to consider the community a finite pie. The OGL recognized this fact and encouraged community growth.  This site is a testament to that fact.  It grew as a community when we all considered each other as gamers, not as system competitors.  An open community grows because it is firstly vibrant and secondly because it is a welcoming place by its very nature.  

I would also like to point out that WotC did not benefit as it should have from the OGL largely because they did not use it.  Sure they released stuff to others but they never really started using what others created, which they should have.  Paizo on the other hand cheerfully plunders ideas from everywhere and encourages others to plunder their ideas; which is how the OGL should be used and is how I think more and more it is being used; and rightfully so.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.





The problem with that is, OGL had the ability to also include ideas from a variety of places. Similar now to what Pathfinder is doing by incorperating  OGL items in(for example, several ToH monsters in the AP's). WotC never ever seemed to do so, so any benefit they might have had was wasted on their part.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 25, 2010)

Wicht said:


> No, I am arguing that those who look at it as a potential loss are missing the big picture.
> 
> Firstly, WotC did not give up control of Dungeons and Dragons, they simply allowed other people to build upon their idea.




I don't think the OGL was a falure at all. D&D 3.xx when it was released was the sequel to a failing game from a failed company. It's easy to see success after the fact. Truth is, the matter was in doubt. The fact that it seems so obvious that 3.xx would succeed in hindsight speaks volumes of praise for Adkinson and Dancey, and the designs of Cook, Williams and Tweet.

So I think the OGL was a great success and succeeded in reinvigorating an entire industry.

I would take exception on one point, however. You need to take a longer view of the OGL and realize that it's not over. Because it certainly isn't. While WotC has moved on, the OGL remains -- and Pathfinder has now grown to be the second biggest RPG in the market, cloaked in the guise of being every bit as legitimate a version of D&D as that produced by WotC, and perhaps more so. 

Moreover, Pathfinder is created by those who have every bit as much of a claim to be the spritual successors to the creator's of 3.xx (indeed, more so, to be blunt) -- and perhaps that of EGG and Arneson, too. 

I am sure that Dancey never dreamed that legitimacy and goodwill to permit another company to make a bid for being the "real" D&D would pass under the OGL.  And in fairness, I suppose it did not - in and of itself. But when it was combined with a legitimacy that passed to Paizo after its excellent stewardship of _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine, together with some significant changes to the D&D core mechanic with the release of 4E?  

I don't think anybody ever saw that schism coming, let alone that successive 3rd companies would then seize upon the OGL as a basis for now supporting a direct competitor to D&D in the marketplace.  So as for "not giving up control of D&D"? I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement, given how matters have turned out.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2010)

I do take a long view of the OGL and recognize its not over.  Reread my post and notice again my mention of Paizo as using the OGL right.  Furthermore, I just had my an OGL book published (see the sig) so I am very much aware its a going thing.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 25, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Mongoose Runequest 1 (MRQ1) had an SRD that was OGL.
> 
> Main Page - MRQWiki




You may have misread what I said.  RQ and Traveller both have OGL licenses created.  I wasn't saying they were the biggest "name" examples of those that are using the OGL




Pramas said:


> That is not correct. What Steve had designed was a city setting. Gold Rush Games was originally supposed to publish it for the Hero System but it never happened.




Thanks for clearing that up.

I will say that some of my criticism of the OGL has been echoed by you.  I have no problem with OGL per se (I think the license has pros and cons), but I think you represent the more pragmatic side of game developers.  I was also inspired by your posts back in 2008 of the OGL.

Ex-Teenage Rebel: Debating the OGL

Ex-Teenage Rebel: Picking the Right Weapon



And steering this back to Necromancer, this is why Green Ronin is still publishing, because as a smart move you were already trying to form your own niches and not be dependent solely on a license or compatibility with D&D.  M&M is a stand-alone product with it's own target audience, True20 is different from standard D&D, and you also have games that aren't using the OGL.  

Necromancer was way too dependent on the D&D teat.  They mostly focused on adventure modules.  One of their most successful products was Tome of Horrors, but that was very dependent on past work of TSR (specifically Gygax and the FF contributors).  Other publishers found ways to diversify.  But if your output is solely dependent on an existing product, you are at risk of being marginalized if the primary producer changes strategies.



Wicht said:


> You would argue that Mearls would have been hired by WotC regardless of his OGL work.  I would argue that you couldn't prove it one way or another because the reality is that Mearls did OGL work and was noticed because of it.  "What ifs" are all very well for fiction but have no real value in determining actual history.




I'm going by past precedence.  A lot of the big name designers came from their prior work, not because of the specific system used.  Two major cases in point:  Warren Spector came to TSR after doing some kick-ass design work for Steve Jackson Games and others.  Monte Cook came to TSR after a lot of work on Rolemaster.  

And if you, as you say, can't prove it "one way or the other", why do people constantly bring up that the OGL is what "created" Mike Mearls?!  If my view is suspect, isn't the opposite the same?  Past precedent even shows that it's not the system used that matters, but the skill of the designer.

I'm just trying to make sure critical thinking is applied.  There's a lot of talk about the OGL, but I think a lot of its proponents are looking at it from--for lack of a better term--a "faith-based" approach.  They see it as a movement or the "future", rather than just a license.  I'm not sure it's going to be the "approved new paradigm" of game publishing.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> And if you, as you say, can't prove it "one way or the other", why do people constantly bring up that the OGL is what "created" Mike Mearls?! If my view is suspect, isn't the opposite the same? Past precedent even shows that it's not the system used that matters, but the skill of the designer.




Its not just the skill, but what they created. Mearls gets brought up because of some past products, most notably Iron Heros, which seems like a fore runner to what became 4e.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> I'm going by past precedence.  A lot of the big name designers came from their prior work, not because of the specific system used.  Two major cases in point:  Warren Spector came to TSR after doing some kick-ass design work for Steve Jackson Games and others.  Monte Cook came to TSR after a lot of work on Rolemaster.
> 
> And if you, as you say, can't prove it "one way or the other", why do people constantly bring up that the OGL is what "created" Mike Mearls?!  If my view is suspect, isn't the opposite the same?  Past precedent even shows that it's not the system used that matters, but the skill of the designer.




Wonder how much of the decisions to hire is based on more mundane stuff like:

- ability to meet deadlines
- writing clearly
- personal connections
- does not demand too high of a salary
- ability to work with other people
- references from previous employers
- portfolio of previous works


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2010)

Talent is all well and good but there's a lot to be said for being in the right place at the right time.  The OGL created opportunities to get recognized. While I've never brought Mearls up myself in an arguement for the OGL, I suspect that those who do are doing so because it is what actually happened.  

To wonder if Mearls would have been as successful without the OGL is akin to specualting about the success of Lincoln if there had been no civil war.  Interesting speculation but ultimately pointless.  History is the intersection of events and personality.  Events are shaped by personalities but so too are people shaped by events.  We cannot study the one without recognizing the importance of the other.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> But that's the thing...D&D was ALREADY the standard in the RPG marketplace. Even during the dark days before WOTC's buying TSR, the D&D game (and engine) ate up the majority of the market.




No. It didn't. It had *vanished* from the marketplace - and had been absent from distrbutors buy lists for quite some time.  As a game played by gamers, D&D was a brand with a long history and damaged goodwill, yes.

But as a commercial product as a going concern? D&D wasn't on life support - D&D was DEAD.

The days of "printer problems" were dark and dank my friend. They were F'ugly. Retailers had no new product to sell for nearly a year. The distribution channel had been interrupted and the entire commercial side of the game had to be shocked back to life.

Prior to that, the Internet had shocked TSR's lawyers to go to war and issue cease and desist letters against its own fans, left right and centre through the late 90s, too.  A lot of fans HATED that brand and hated T$R, too.  A lot of them with good reason, I would say.

2nd Edition ended up as a monumental commercial FAILURE. Yes, with caps. FAILURE. Dead company and a wrecked brand with an incredibly damaged goodwill amongst its own fans.    

Magic:TG had destroyed D&D's new player acquisition model and there was no plan in place to restore the influx of new players upn which the solvency of the whole depended. The best plan Dancey and Adkinson came up with was a means to entice all the lapsed D&D players who were playing some other RPG or game to rush back to the brand en masse in order to give the brand time to acquire new teenage players, too. That was a BIG COLOSSAL roll of the dice.  They managed to roll a 20 -- but that was a consequence of good management, great marketing, solid design and the D20/OGL license. It was not a matter of predestiny. 

You are seeing success after the fact, ignoring the intervening disaster that was the CAUSE of the sale of TSR to WotC -- and projecting success on the whole over a course of years. You are treating the events which triggered the end of TSR as a mere speedbump along the road over the course of the game's history.

It appears that way now only in hindsight - and only after the benefit of a hugely successful 3rd Edition of the game. Take away that success and D&D could have died for good as a commercial enterprise.

Yes. It really _could_ have gone another way.


----------



## Votan (Apr 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I'm just skeptical that say d20 Conan does more for WOTC than say GURPS Conan.




My view has to do with the complexity of role playing games.  Modern RPGs have fairly complicated mechanics and figuring them out can take a fair amount of time.  This can act as a barrier to entry.  When much of the market uses the d20 riles, they become extremely familiar and ensure that the general ideas of your product line are more widely taught.

So they combine the brand advantage of Dungeons and Dragons with the best known and widely used mechanics as well.  

I'd see this as a good deal.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 25, 2010)

Votan said:


> My view has to do with the complexity of role playing games.  Modern RPGs have fairly complicated mechanics and figuring them out can take a fair amount of time.  This can act as a barrier to entry.




Figuring out a new ruleset usually isn't a major problem with many gamers who have been playing for a long time.

It may take longer for a newbie or inexperienced player to figure out a new set of complicated mechanics.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Apr 25, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> The days of "printer problems" were dark and dank my friend. They were F'ugly. Retailers had no new product to sell for nearly a year. The distribution channel had been interrupted and the entire commercial side of the game had to be shocked back to life.




  And yet, during that timeframe, it only slipped from the #1 position on the RPG sales lists for _one_ month--when WW released the revised Vampire: The Masquerade.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 25, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> And yet, during that timeframe, it only slipped from the #1 position on the RPG sales lists for _one_ month--when WW released the revised Vampire: The Masquerade.




Being "first" when nobody is selling _anything_ is like being the only channel on TV and being first in your time slot when practically nobody is watching and there isn't a single advertiser paying for a commercial.

You're not getting it.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 25, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> D&D was a brand with a long history and damaged goodwill, yes.
> 
> But as a commercial product as a going concern? D&D wasn't on life support - D&D was DEAD.




Was it truly a commercial failure though?  It may not have had as much success as the 1st Edition did, but it was still at the top of the marketplace.  The fact that they couldn't manage their debt doesn't seem to have been a failure based on selling product, but poor planning of various factors and competition from games like CCGs.

And the Internet fiasco's I think were minor and didn't really affect the bottom line.  I think people are seeing the d20/OGL as the main factor for its success, rather than just an attribute of several factors.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Was it truly a commercial failure though?  It may not have had as much success as the 1st Edition did, but it was still at the top of the marketplace.  The fact that they couldn't manage their debt doesn't seem to have been a failure based on selling product, but poor planning of various factors and competition from games like CCGs.




Their player acquisition model was dead in the water. Yes, the product line based upon selling people some rule books and making all of their money on settings and modules was a commercial failure.


----------



## Jadeite (Apr 25, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Their player acquisition model was dead in the water. Yes, the product line based upon selling people some rule books and making all of their money on settings and modules was a commercial failure.




Seems to work rather well for Paizo.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 25, 2010)

Jadeite said:


> Seems to work rather well for Paizo.




Paizo has a very different player acquisition and customer churn model. Whether it can prove successful over the long haul remains to be seen. I hope so.

That doesn't change what happened to TSR though.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 25, 2010)

Jadeite said:


> Seems to work rather well for Paizo.





Different time and era. PLus they have a long track record of quality, and lots and lots of good will with its customer base. Something which TSR lacked after a time. Its difficult to sell your customers a product if your antagonize them...(see Games Workshop)


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 25, 2010)

At least in my circles (and I knew at least a hundred gamers in college), D&D wasn't 'the standard' back then.  It had really stagnated, and most people I knew had left it for other systems that they considered more advanced -- for example, games that had a real skill system.  In my case, that game was RuneQuest.  Lots of people I knew played GURPS and the various White Wolf games as well.

3rd edition D&D really changed that.  For the first time, D&D had a game system that had a skill system and a unified resolution mechanic.  

That certainly helped, but for my own circle of friends (many of whom were computer science majors/beginning software developers ) the OGL made  D&D 'cool' as well as 'competent'.  

We viewed ourselves as sortof postmodern (yes, it seems ridiculous  in hindsight) gamers who were beyond what TSR could possibly provide in terms of story and themes.  The OGL meant that edgier companies could provide what TSR / WoTC would not.  It made it substantially easier for me to convince our entire group of gamers to quit playing RuneQuest and try D&D.

Ken





AllisterH said:


> But that's the thing...D&D was ALREADY the standard in the RPG marketplace. Even during the dark days before WOTC's buying TSR, the D&D game (and engine) ate up the majority of the market.
> 
> Even white wolf I dont think in its heyday came close to dislodging D&D at its lowest ebb...If this had been WHITE WOLF that came up with the OGL, I think it would be a brilliant way to increase market share to BECOME #1.
> 
> ...


----------



## ggroy (Apr 25, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Paizo has a very different player acquisition and customer churn model. Whether it can prove successful over the long haul remains to be seen. I hope so.




How does Paizo's "player acquisition and customer churn model" function, in comparison to TSR/WotC?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 25, 2010)

Paizo was handed its customers, and most of its employees, on a silver platter, by some other company whose name escapes me at the moment.




ggroy said:


> How does Paizo's "player acquisition and customer churn model" function, in comparison to TSR/WotC?


----------



## Pramas (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> And steering this back to Necromancer, this is why Green Ronin is still publishing, because as a smart move you were already trying to form your own niches and not be dependent solely on a license or compatibility with D&D.  M&M is a stand-alone product with it's own target audience, True20 is different from standard D&D, and you also have games that aren't using the OGL.




Well, we learned some valuable lessons from M&M. First, that it was possible to publish a really successful game using the OGL but without the d20 logo. Second, that doing so minimized the impact of any changes WotC might make in D&D. We saw this first with 3.5. Sales of our 3.0 era d20 books took a serious hit after D&D 3.5 came out, but sales of M&M were not affected at all.

I've always believed that GR should publish a diverse portfolio. Every game has a life cycle, with an ending that can be natural (interest simple wanes) or unnatural (your license changes or is yanked). If you have many irons in the fire, you can survive when a game or product line ends. If you bet everything on the continuation of the status quo, odds are you will eventually regret it.

During the whole 4E/GSL debate, Clark said at one point that he was only interested in publishing if he could do so for the latest edition of D&D. That struck me as a strange position to take, as it seemed to place the brand of D&D over the game itself. I had to look at it more practically. If my interests and WotC's lined up, great. Ultimately I decided that they didn't so GR moved on. Even if we followed through on our 4E plans, however, that would only have been one part of GR's overall publishing plan. There's a limit to how much control I want to give another company over my business.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 25, 2010)

ggroy said:


> How does Paizo's "player acquisition and customer churn model" function, in comparison to TSR/WotC?




D&D is a gateway game; Pathfinder is not (and is not marketed as one right now, either - though the Pathfinder Society is at least trying to keep the doors open to new gamers with organized play).  People who start with RPGs are overwhelmingly likely to start with D&D more than any other system. (V:TM might have once been an exception to this when it came to female gamers, however, WoD's popularity has decreased a lot over the years - I don't know whether this is still true).

Whatever the case, people start with D&D and the overwhelming number of those players "churn out" of gaming and leave the hobby within three years or less. Those that do not churn out, stick with it and remain casual or lifestyle gamers and play D&D until they eventually churn out and leave the hobby many years later -- or graduate to another game system.  Pathfinder is one of those "graduate to" systems. Right now, it's the most popular, actually.

So those are the kind of people who are most likely to play Pathfinder. There are a lot less of them than "ordinary" new gamers, but they tend not to leave the hobby for quite a while.

Which means that Pathfinder's players, like those gamers who play all "graduate" or second tier games  will tend to be gamers in for the long haul within the hobby.  They are less likely to leave the hobby and stop being your customers, as a relative percentage to D&D's customer base - the large majority of which *do* "churn out" of the hobby.

Does not mean Pathfinder's customer base won't leave the  game for another RPG within the hobby, mind you.  The biggest risk would be losing them back to D&D with that game's 5th or 6th Ed. For the precedent in FPRG gaming, look to GURPS and Rolemaster, which were both the big second tier FRPGs of the late 80s and throughout  the 90s. The large majority of the customers of those game systems "came back" to D&D with 3.xx.


----------



## Filcher (Apr 25, 2010)

Pramas said:


> During the whole 4E/GSL debate, Clark said at one point that he was only interested in publishing if he could do so for the latest edition of D&D. That struck me as a strange position to take, as it seemed to place the brand of D&D over the game itself. I had to look at it more practically. If my interests and WotC's lined up, great. Ultimately I decided that they didn't so GR moved on. Even if we followed through on our 4E plans, however, that would only have been one part of GR's overall publishing plan. There's a limit to how much control I want to give another company over my business.




This seems a very rational and sensible stance to take.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Does not mean Pathfinder's customer base won't leave the  game for another RPG within the hobby, mind you.




It doesn't.  On the other hand, you have folks like myself who, after twenty seven years of gaming no longer care as much about the rules and care more about the 'story' and the 'adventure.'  I've had fun with multiple games and editions and the rules really blended into the background in almost every edition and game.  More important was the interaction of PC and NPC and DM.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 25, 2010)

So since we now know what happened to Necromancer Games and the thread has started to veer off into various subjects that have nothing to do with the original, is it time to be shut down?


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 25, 2010)

I think the insights into marketing and such...that may have contributed to what happened to Necromancer Games...very interesting and would not like this thread shut down.

P.S. I would never ask for a thread to be shut down, let them die a natural (or violent) death.
(no disrespect to Joe's opinion intended)


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 25, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> So since we now know what happened to Necromancer Games and the thread has started to veer off into various subjects that have nothing to do with the original, is it time to be shut down?




Why shut down an interesting thread, just because it goes off on a tangent? There's no real edition war or anything like that going on.  Maybe we can fork the OGL discussion...


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 25, 2010)

Pramas said:


> During the whole 4E/GSL debate, Clark said at one point that he was only interested in publishing if he could do so for the latest edition of D&D. That struck me as a strange position to take, as it seemed to place the brand of D&D over the game itself.




I'd guess from his posts that Clark always saw Necromancer Games as the modern-day Judges Guild, and thus wanted to support the current version of Dungeons and Dragons only.

Unfortunately, the relationship between the primaries at TSR and Judges Guild (back when Judges Guild was making those complementary adventures) seems to be quite a bit different than the relationship between the primaries at Necro and WotC at present.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 25, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Why shut down an interesting thread, just because it goes off on a tangent? There's no real edition war or anything like that going on.  Maybe we can fork the OGL discussion...



I'm okay with the tangent, especially since the original question was fully resolved. Just keeps things interesting and polite - like usual.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Pramas said:


> During the whole 4E/GSL debate, Clark said at one point that he was only interested in publishing if he could do so for the latest edition of D&D. That struck me as a strange position to take, as it seemed to place the brand of D&D over the game itself. I had to look at it more practically.



Might it have something to do with Necromancer being less important to him (in the sense of it not being his day job) than GR is to you? Businesses not intended to provide a livelihood can bear different business models.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 26, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Paizo was handed its customers, and most of its employees, on a silver platter, by some other company whose name escapes me at the moment.





Uhm no, not even close. 

They work pretty hands on with their customer base. Their approachable, and answer your questions.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 26, 2010)

carmachu said:


> Uhm no, not even close.
> 
> They work pretty hands on with their customer base. Their approachable, and answer your questions.




AND.... let's not forget the huge AND here, were responsible for Dungeon and Dragon magazine and were able to, thanks in no small part of that history of careful caretaking, including some massive ups and downs, keep a large part of that talent and that audience and a large part of the audience disatisfied with 4e with them.

I'm sure Piazo would still be a great company but if they hadn't been doing Dragon and Dungeon? Quite a different story I'd suspect.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 26, 2010)

I don't disagree with you at all.  Paizo is a fantastic company.  I mean no disrespect to them.

My point was that Hasbro has made some decisions that benefitted Paizo greatly.  

They conduct yearly layoffs, and often seem to lay off their best people.  That provides a ready source of new employees at Paizo.  

They gave the Dungeon and Dragon license to Paizo, giving them the opportunity to excel and achieve huge visibility in the D&D world.  Then they radically changed D&D, forcing players to embrace a completely new game or be fired as customers, while simultaneously making it very difficult for Paizo to come to the new edition with them.

And the alternative that looks most like D&D to those people who do get fired is now produced by Paizo, and written by many of the same people who wrote 3rd edition D&D.

That's what I mean by 'handing customers and employees to Paizo on a silver platter'. 

Ken



carmachu said:


> Uhm no, not even close.
> 
> They work pretty hands on with their customer base. Their approachable, and answer your questions.


----------



## Greg K (Apr 26, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> If the compendium, monster builder and character builder were up during the start of the 3.x era, there would be no 3PP either even WITH the more open OGL.





> During 3.x, there really was no difference between a 3.x sourcebook produced by WOTC and a 3PP in terms of how easily it was to integrate the material into an existing campaign......




Well, speaking for myself and several other gamers I know,  a 3.5 compendium, monster builder and character builder would not have stopped us from using the 3pp we use now.  Most WOTC supplements among my circle of gamers were banned or saw only very select items used.   

If I were to run 4e, the same electronic items would have no impact on the use of 3pp.  There are several WOTC races and classes that I would not allow and several 3pp  that I would use (e.g, Blackdyrge's Critter Cache supplements for Goodman Games and elements from Expeditious Retreats's Advanced Player's Guide ).  If other 3pp were to produce material (including, but not limited to race and class supplements) that fit my tastes for the games I run, I would include and use them as well.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 26, 2010)

Greg K said:


> Well, speaking for myself and several other gamers I know,  a 3.5 compendium, monster builder and character builder would not have stopped us from using the 3pp we use now.  Most WOTC supplements among my circle of gamers were banned or saw only very select items used.
> 
> If I were to run 4e, the same electronic items would have no impact on the use of 3pp.  There are several WOTC races and classes that I would not allow and several 3pp  that I would use (e.g, Blackdyrge's Critter Cache supplements for Goodman Games and elements from Expeditious Retreats's Advanced Player's Guide ).  If other 3pp were to produce material (including, but not limited to race and class supplements) that fit my tastes for the games I run, I would include and use them as well.




A lot of people said this before they became hooked. It is difficult to put custom elements into the pre-printed sheets; just is the path of least resistance and tends to focus energy on other parts of the game the more easily accepts custom elements - like those from 3rd parties. DDI and the compendium are like a drug for game prep.

Maybe you would have been one of the exceptions, maybe...


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 26, 2010)

I don't think a lot of non 4e players realize how much of a prep timer cutter the DDI suite of tools have been....for BOTH players and DMs.

We're EASILY talking at the minimum, half the time and (given I've built up a database of NPCs/monsters) most of the time, we're talking to 1/3 to 1/4 the time.


----------



## Jadeite (Apr 26, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I don't think a lot of non 4e players realize how much of a prep timer cutter the DDI suite of tools have been....for BOTH players and DMs.
> 
> We're EASILY talking at the minimum, half the time and (given I've built up a database of NPCs/monsters) most of the time, we're talking to 1/3 to 1/4 the time.




It's not like we non 4e players haven't got our own tools. PCGen might not be as supported as the character and monster builder, but it's still pretty helpful. And 3PPs are free to include their books in PGGen.

We might not have the DDI compendium, but we have this:
Pathfinder SRD (Pathfinder_OGC)
The Archives of Nethys - Home

We also have the option to purchase the Pathfinder Books as pdfs (or even get those for free in case of a subscription). Did I mention the playtest classes we got without paying a monthly fee?

Now, if only NG would release a Pathfinder Tome of Horrors ...
As it is now, Pathfinder players and DMs are pretty close to having the cake and eating it.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 26, 2010)

As a non-4e player, I must admit that the DDI doesn't do a whole lot for me and having never used it, perhaps I'm just missing the thrill.  But while a computer program that does it all for you is neat and quick, I have always enjoyed the pleasure of doing certain things myself.

I'm the sort, I like doing Sudoku.  I like seeing how fast I can fill it all in on my own (and I can go pretty quick).  Now a computer could fill in the same puzzle in a fraction of a second, but where is the accomplishment in that.  There's no cerebral pleasure from having it all done for you.  

Also, and this may just be the nostalgic coming out in me, I get a certain satisfaction from watching my children sit on the sofa, the rulebook open, the dice in their lap, as they slowly work to put together characters.  They go carefully through the book, rereading the feats, checking the stats on each weapon, picking out the right skills. I know they are learning the game that way and getting hooked.  Sure a computer would be faster, we'd get into the narrative of the game faster, but character building has always been part of my game and I'm glad its part of my children's game. 

And from a practical aspect, there is the fact that to learn the rules to a roleplaying game I have always used character and monster building as my method of choice.  I suspect those that use the DDI will know the rules less well than those that pick slowly through the books. And I believe I've read some complaining about that very thing.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 26, 2010)

Greg K said:


> Well, speaking for myself and several other gamers I know,  a 3.5 compendium, monster builder and character builder would not have stopped us from using the 3pp we use now.  Most WOTC supplements among my circle of gamers were banned or saw only very select items used.
> 
> If I were to run 4e, the same electronic items would have no impact on the use of 3pp.  There are several WOTC races and classes that I would not allow and several 3pp  that I would use (e.g, Blackdyrge's Critter Cache supplements for Goodman Games and elements from Expeditious Retreats's Advanced Player's Guide ).  If other 3pp were to produce material (including, but not limited to race and class supplements) that fit my tastes for the games I run, I would include and use them as well.




You're the opposite of most GMs and players. Most went with official WoTC material after the 3.5 switch thanks to being burned by companies like Mongoose so often.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 26, 2010)

Post deleted.


----------



## Filcher (Apr 26, 2010)

I still do pencil and lined paper for my BECMI games, but 4e is DDI.  Especially for conventions ("I need 7 pre-gens, asap!) the DDI is a godsend. 

For our 4e game, the DDI killed any non-WotC character material. We still use Goodman for modules, but that is it. 

And yes, I feel like a little bit of me has died.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 26, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> AND.... let's not forget the huge AND here, were responsible for Dungeon and Dragon magazine and were able to, thanks in no small part of that history of careful caretaking, including some massive ups and downs, keep a large part of that talent and that audience and a large part of the audience disatisfied with 4e with them.
> 
> I'm sure Piazo would still be a great company but if they hadn't been doing Dragon and Dungeon? Quite a different story I'd suspect.





Right. But they also, during that time, had  built up a standard for quality, which if they werent working on DUngeon, you might not have seen what adventures come through.

Pathfinder, the adventure path- as a flagship, was still a gamble. It didnt necessarily translate from jumping from the magazines to the AP path. You had several options, including jumping ship.

Granted, you also have to include WOTC's fumbling the ball at that point as well as Paizo caretaking the magazines. Wotc pissed ALOT of people off with the cancellation, and them saying, loosely "we have something really really cool coming" and not having it ready or even  a preview of the cool thing, left that door wide open.

Paizo wasnt handed its customers, they built up alot of good will before hand. And continue to build so.


----------



## ruemere (Apr 26, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> You're the opposite of *most* GMs and players. *Most* went with official WoTC material after the 3.5 switch thanks to being burned by companies like Mongoose so often.




I wish you had refrained from making generalizations.

Disclaimer: I have had a look and even attempted to put to some use books you mentioned by WotC but found them wanting. Some even still collect dust on my shelves.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## BryonD (Apr 26, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> You're the opposite of most GMs and players. Most went with official WoTC material after the 3.5 switch thanks to being burned by companies like Mongoose so often.



I don't think you are right.  
The nature of 3PPs certainly changed because THEY got burned with 3.5.

But I'd say my wotc/3PP usage went from 70/30 pre-3.5 to 20/80 post 3.5.
And people I've talked to seem to be in the same ballpark.  
Perhaps I'm in a very happy subset of the overall market.  But that's my view.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 26, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I don't think you are right.
> The nature of 3PPs certainly changed because THEY got burned with 3.5.
> 
> But I'd say my wotc/3PP usage went from 70/30 pre-3.5 to 20/80 post 3.5.
> ...




And yet most heavy supports of D&D 3.5 stopped because people stopped buying.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 26, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I don't think you are right.
> The nature of 3PPs certainly changed because THEY got burned with 3.5.
> 
> But I'd say my wotc/3PP usage went from 70/30 pre-3.5 to 20/80 post 3.5.
> ...




That was most definitely the case for me. I mean I still bought some of the 3.5 stuff because I really didn't see the change over from 3.0 to 3.5 as the fricking earth shattering deal breaker that some people did. I did buy heavily from Malhavoc, Goodman, Fantasy Flight and Necromancer Games. Having been burnt by Mongoose I didn't write off all third parties I just wrote off the companies that I felt had bad stuff.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 27, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> And yet most heavy supports of D&D 3.5 stopped because people stopped buying.



Yep.  Once the market was completely saturated, people stopped buying.  But that was several years after 3.5 AND WotC stopped as well, it just took WotC longer to turn their ship around.

At the end the 3E pie was smaller, no doubt.  But you made no comment about the size of the pie.  You claimed the WotC portion of the pie grew.  I very much believe the statement you made was wrong.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 27, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Yep.  Once the market was completely saturated, people stopped buying.  But that was several years after 3.5 AND WotC stopped as well, it just took WotC longer to turn their ship around.
> 
> At the end the 3E pie was smaller, no doubt.  But you made no comment about the size of the pie.  You claimed the WotC portion of the pie grew.  I very much believe the statement you made was wrong.




So when WoTC products were the only ones you could buy in the store, the size of WoTC pie didn't grow? When GR decided, "We're not going to print the Advanced Race or Advance Class compendium because we'd take a blood bath on it", GR's d20 3.5 slice of the pie grew? Since Chris has already said they took a massive beating when 3.5 came out in the first place, I don't see that happening. And as it happened to other comapnies like Atlas and their massive beastiary and Violet Dawn as well as others, we must have very different recollections or defintions.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 27, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> So when WoTC products were the only ones you could buy in the store, the size of WoTC pie didn't grow? When GR decided, "We're not going to print the Advanced Race or Advance Class compendium because we'd take a blood bath on it", GR's d20 3.5 slice of the pie grew? Since Chris has already said they took a massive beating when 3.5 came out in the first place, I don't see that happening. And as it happened to other comapnies like Atlas and their massive beastiary and Violet Dawn as well as others, we must have very different recollections or defintions.





I agree with you Joe, 3pp sales shrank and shrank after about the third year. If you were wrong their sales would have grown. I think the only 3pp who's sales increased was Goodman Games, everyone else, GR, Mongoose, Necromancer, PAradigm, AEG, everyone, cut back more and more because sales kept declining.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 27, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> So when WoTC products were the only ones you could buy in the store, the size of WoTC pie didn't grow?



That never happened.  



> When GR decided, "We're not going to print the Advanced Race or Advance Class compendium because we'd take a blood bath on it", GR's d20 3.5 slice of the pie grew?  Since Chris has already said they took a massive beating when 3.5 came out in the first place, I don't see that happening. And as it happened to other comapnies like Atlas and their massive beastiary and Violet Dawn as well as others, we must have very different recollections or defintions.



You are mixing and matching and getting it all wrong.

You said:


JoeGKushner said:


> You're the opposite of most GMs and players. Most went with official WoTC material after the 3.5 switch thanks to being burned by companies like Mongoose so often.





Players being burned and companies being burned are two completely different things.  I mentioned before you did that companies got burned by 3.5.  But I still bought a ton of 3.5 3PP stuff.  Now, many companies got smart and moved away from D20 STL and other elements that made them dependent on WotC.  That is part of what made WotC end up losing control.

Simple fact for you: My purchases and use of 3PP went up sharply AFTER 3.5.

Now: this is just anecdote, but my experience is that this was typical. 

Now, later on, and having pretty much nothing to do with 3.5, the market became completely saturated.  At that point sales really plummeted.  Many companies stopped production of titles because the market was done.  Tying this back to 3.5 years earlier is a mistake.   

I suppose there may have been a period right at / after the 4E announcement that virtually zero 3PP became true.  I'm not certain that the existence of new product from WotC constitutes a bigger sales pie, when the new product isn't selling either.  But I guess the "never" I said above isn't 100% dead on.  But in context of your initial quote it is close enough.

I know that I bought practically nothing between the 4e announcement and Pathfinder.  My only early 2008 purchase that springs to mind was City of Brass by....  wait for it.... Necromancer.  

Bottom line, everyone talks about the glut.  There was a glut.  A glut is when there is way too much product.  Are you claiming there was too much product because no one was producing it?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 27, 2010)

Treebore said:


> I agree with you Joe, 3pp sales shrank and shrank after about the third year. If you were wrong their sales would have grown. I think the only 3pp who's sales increased was Goodman Games, everyone else, GR, Mongoose, Necromancer, PAradigm, AEG, everyone, cut back more and more because sales kept declining.



I agree that sales shrank.  I never disputed that.  

I dispute that 3.5 was the primary cause.  
And I observe that as sales shrank, 3PPs portion of what sales there were grew.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 27, 2010)

I think the point Bryon is trying to make is that at the end of the 3.5 cycle, the 3pp were more appealing than the WotC products.  I know that was true for me.  I glanced through Bo9S and the various race books but none of them appealed to me.  I bought Races of Stone, the only one of those books I bought and was a little meh about it and after that there wasn't any that made me think, I need that.  In fact, I think IIRC after RAces of Stone, I bought Ghostwalk off of Ebay and then nothing till they released the Rules Compendium.  At the same time, Paizo was beginning to really produce products that appealed to me and when the APs started coming out I more or less switched from being a WotC customer to a Paizo customer.  So anyway, long story short: I haven't bought a thing off of WotC since Rules Compendium and not much else for two years before that. But I was supporting 3pps more and more.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 27, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think the point Bryon is trying to make is that at the end of the 3.5 cycle, the 3pp were more appealing than the WotC products.  I know that was true for me.  I glanced through Bo9S and the various race books but none of them appealed to me.  I bought Races of Stone, the only one of those books I bought and was a little meh about it and after that there wasn't any that made me think, I need that.  In fact, I think IIRC after RAces of Stone, I bought Ghostwalk off of Ebay and then nothing till they released the Rules Compendium.  At the same time, Paizo was beginning to really produce products that appealed to me and when the APs started coming out I more or less switched from being a WotC customer to a Paizo customer.  So anyway, long story short: I haven't bought a thing off of WotC since Rules Compendium and not much else for two years before that. But I was supporting 3pps more and more.




And I guess if we're counting only internet e-books, nothing wrong with 'em, love 'em, outside of Paizo and Goodman, there really weren't ANY 3PP being published. White Wolf took a massive beating, GR skipped town, Atlas left, Bastion was crushed and evolved into a different beast, Bad Axe Games never finished their Races series, etc... Even good old fashioned Necromancer Games couldn't get  for tat published by their partners at Paizo for a vareity of reasons well before 4e came out and prior to that were using other partners like Troll Lord (who long stopped 3e style in favor of Castles and Crusades) and Kenzer, who went back to Hackmaster, to publish their products.

I guess I'm not 'seeing' this wealth of 3.5 products I could've bought at the store in the first place for their to be more growth or purchase of those books.

But that's my own experience.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 27, 2010)

I can buy that people were paying more attention to 3pp's as the end drew near to WOTC's 3E days, but unfortunately by that time there were very few 3pp's doing much of anything for 3E D&D. I think GR was still putting out an occasional Bleeding Edge module, Mongoose was dribbling out some things, AEG may still have been doing something, (talking print here, PDF is a little bit different of a story), and Necromancer was still trying to go full bore by publishing via Kenzer, but then the 4E announcement killed those plans after the first 3 mods were published. Even so, by that time Necromancer wasn't even selling a thousand copies anymore.

So the only really highly visible 3pp by that point was Paizo, with Goodman Games a distant second. Everyone else was a very distant third... or completely gone, or like FFG and completely switched over to other RPG's, with one or two notable exceptions. That still haven't seen the light of day last time I checked. Bastion Press was completely PDF by then too, I think.

So yeah, nothing much to look at anymore, except for close out prices on stuff that had already been on the shelves for years. So a good time to buy, but a lousy time for the companies.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 27, 2010)

I've always liked using a third party product on occassion.  Even back in 1st Edition days.  You all remember the Role-Aids series right?  I remember mining them for a lot of goodies both fluff and crunch.

Third Parties have always played at least a small role in the development of D&D.  And I'm quite sure they will continue to do so.

What grognards (like myself) all need to learn, the old editions will not come back, with the exceptions of Aniversary packs and PDFs.  
Paizo holds the torch rather high for us and their Pathfinder product, sure it's D&D 3.95E but it still at it's core a D20 product of 3/3.5E.
Will we show the same 'nerdrage' when they announce Pathfinder 2.0?  It's a valid question when you think about it.  They will have a business model that dictates they need to sell x amount to make x amount, and if they only sell x, it's time to REFRESH the brand.  The quickest way to do that is with a new edition.


Now back to the topics at hand, a very good faith gesture of WotC (if you all are looking in) would be allowing the incorporation of 3pp data to your Character/Monster builders.  Have it stipulated as part of the GSL, that a company is allowed to provide data for import to WotC's developers in a specific format to include on their data releases.  They can mark them as BETA only in the include source list and have them defaulted to off.  Maybe a special border on their items to show on the character print outs that they are derived from a third party supplement.
How many third party publishers would make that effort?  
Though I think the better method would be allow for a rules dataset importer be part of the Builders.
I think we could all agree this would be a good thing right least for us on the consumer side.  

O well I'm babbling.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 27, 2010)

Role Aids, Arduin, and of course the good old Judges Guild. Some solid stuff there.

But in the whole 3pp selling more than WoTC... it just wasn't happening. If it was, we wouldn't be playing Dungeons and Dragons. We'd be playing AEG's Warlords of the Accordlands (another huge bomb thanks to timing) or some other RPG and WoTC would be twitching their mustache talking about getting back on top soon.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 27, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Role Aids, Arduin, and of course the good old Judges Guild. Some solid stuff there.
> 
> But in the whole 3pp selling more than WoTC... it just wasn't happening. If it was, we wouldn't be playing Dungeons and Dragons. We'd be playing AEG's Warlords of the Accordlands (another huge bomb thanks to timing) or some other RPG and WoTC would be twitching their mustache talking about getting back on top soon.




Totally forgot about Accordlands! Plus didn't they try and do the Worlds Largest City release about the time of the 4E announcement? That seemed to practically cripple them. I haven't gotten the same "vibe" from the company ever since. It shocked me that they did Ultimate Toolbox as a soft cover. I'm glad they did, and their publicly stated reasons make good sense, but I still have my suspicions...


----------



## BryonD (Apr 28, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> But in the whole 3pp selling more than WoTC... it just wasn't happening.



No doubt.  I don't claim otherwise.  I *DO* claim that my personal buying of 3PPs was much higher than WotC and that divide grew over time.  And, I know that is true for many others as well.

But, there are vast numbers of people that don't buy 3PP at all.  You specifically said that people started avoiding 3PP after "being burned by companies like Mongoose so often".  Your claim that the bulk of people bought 3PP and then fled from it due to quality is not correct.  Trying to retrofit an unrelated and absurd point into that is not very beneficial.



> If it was, we wouldn't be playing Dungeons and Dragons. We'd be playing AEG's Warlords of the Accordlands (another huge bomb thanks to timing) or some other RPG and WoTC would be twitching their mustache talking about getting back on top soon.



"We" aren't playing Dungeons and Dragons....



(at least not WotC D&D)


----------



## Crothian (Apr 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Your claim that the bulk of people bought 3PP and then fled from it due to quality is not correct.




If it was not due to the quality then why in your opinion did they stop buying 3pp?


----------



## Azgulor (Apr 28, 2010)

Crothian said:


> If it was not due to the quality then why in your opinion did they stop buying 3pp?




I can only speak for my own experience but here are the reasons I spent less (didn't stop buying) 3PP content.  Note: 3rd-party products are what brought me back to D&D (3.5).  While I had picked up 3.0,  I never played it.

1. General economic pressures.  The economy started going sour and in a competitive technology job, it was time to tighten the belt and build up the f-u fund.  I couldn't tell my family to cut expenses and then continue to support my RPG hobby at the same rate.

2. More discerning tastes.  By this time, I'd narrowed down my list of go-to publishers.  WotC didn't make the list as I became increasingly disillusioned with each successive 3.5 splatbook.  In some cases, it was a matter of choosing a particular product from similar offerings by different publishers.  In others, it was simply a matter of "what will I use in my game more often?".

3. Less new material offered.  There was the glut, the near-certainty of 4e, the once-burned/twice-shy effect that 3.5 had, and no clear picture of whether an OGL would exist.  The larger and/or wiser 3PPs made business plans to adapt, smaller and/or less-wise ones didn't and suffered for it.

Ultimately, as a consumer, I became choosier about my purchases for a combination of reasons.  However, I was still buying 3rd-party products.  Coincidentally, the reviews by Crothian and Joe Kushner became one of my primary methods for vetting/prioritizing those 3PP purchases.


In the end, the reasons for declining sales of 3.5 & 3PP products have no single smoking gun.

I think the sad reality is that most publishers (WotC included) developed business plans that assumed a higher sustained level of sales than materialized.  Was the glut the reason for the decline in sales?  It certaintly was a component but it's unlikely it was the only reason - economics are seldom so simple.  Was quality the reason for the decline?  I'll stack any Green Ronin d20/OGL supplement in my library against WotC 3e product.  Against the core rulebooks, it's close.  Against the later 3.5 splats - no contest.  GR's books win hands down.

The 3PP market for 4e is tiny by comparison.  Certainly, the dearth (i.e. greatly diminished count compared to 3/3.5) of 3rd-party product has not translated into a 1:1 uptick in WotC sales or growth in other RPG games.

To use the technology cycle as an example, the end of 3.5 is analagous to commoditization of a product - what once brought a premium no longer could do so.  As with any industry, developing one's business plan in sync with that cycle is crucial.  Do it well, you usually see sustained growth.  Do it less well, and you will have declines or peaks-n-troughs along the way.  Also, today's partner is tomorrow's competitor.  It happens, people.

Being RPG enthusiasts, we think in terms of the hobby first (as we should) yet that's dangerous for a company.  The companies have to think in terms of profit & sustainability (as they should - employees paychecks depend on it).

WotC chose to reinvent its business plan with a new edition, tight control of electronic content for that edition, and a greatly pared down 3PP environment.  They gambled that the significant change in their business plan would net them more customers than they lost.  By purely anecdotal evidence, it was a successful business plan.  However, by equally anecdotal evidence, it has no produced the same level of sales as 3.0/3.5.  It also created a significant rift in the D&D community over what it had in the heyday of 3e.  As ENWorld frequently highlights, one can argue if the success achieved by 4e was greater than, less than, or equal to the business plans' targets.

Green Ronin, Mongoose, and Fantasy Flight Games unhitched their wagons from the OGL to pursue other RPGs and lines of business.  As to whether they are growing, declining, or holding steady, I can't say.

Paizo rolled the dice and (by equally anecdotal accounts) succeeded beyond their best-case scenario.

Necromancer took a wait-and-see approach - because they were small enough to be able to do so.  Necromancer games wasn't (to my understanding) anyone's primary source of income.

The only thing consistent amongst those examples is that they each have different, and in some cases wildly different, business plans.  

Ultimately, it's business.  Labors of love for many, but without operating capital, it reverts to being just a hobby.


As for me?  WotC gets $0 of my gaming budget.  No malice, just fact.
Paizo = 70%
PF-compatible products = 20%
Other 3PP = 10%

I'm still a 3PP-fan.  Here's hoping Necromancer has great success with PF-compatible products.


----------



## Azgulor (Apr 28, 2010)

Double-post deleted.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I *DO* claim that my personal buying of 3PPs was much higher than WotC and that divide grew over time.  And, I know that is true for many others as well.




Can't argue personal preference.




BryonD said:


> But, there are vast numbers of people that don't buy 3PP at all.  You specifically said that people started avoiding 3PP after "being burned by companies like Mongoose so often".  Your claim that the bulk of people bought 3PP and then fled from it due to quality is not correct.




Part of it was being burnt. Part of it, the larger part probably, is that most people prefer official content to begin with. If they didn't, as I mentioned earlier, we wouldn't be playing D&D. D&D would be some side brand of the game as opposed to the biggest dog in the house.

But perhaps a poll to show people's preference? I know when 3pp shows up, Mongoose gets tossed into the ring a lot as well as companies like the guys who did that super hero d20 game the Foundation as to why 'official' products are better.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 28, 2010)

Wicht said:


> So anyway, long story short: I haven't bought a thing off of WotC since Rules Compendium and not much else for two years before that. But I was supporting 3pps more and more.



Do you have the Magic Item Compendium? I have found that extremely useful for DM'ing 3.75E (Trailblazer). 

The Rules Compendium was extremely useful. I only wish it had come out a year or two earlier.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 28, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Do you have the Magic Item Compendium? I have found that extremely useful for DM'ing 3.75E (Trailblazer).
> 
> The Rules Compendium was extremely useful. I only wish it had come out a year or two earlier.




I don't have the magic item compendium, no.  Not sure if I would use it or not.  When we have a caster interested in making magic items, the lists get perused for abilities and costs but otherwise, I simply give out treasure to suit my whim or according to the prepublished treasure contents.

One point to add to the 3pp discussion.  My feeling is that there are more 3pps supporting Paizo now than WotC.  Likewise, I also glean from tidbits dropped here and there that 3pp sales are higher in support of Pathfinder than 4e.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out in a couple of years.  As a newly minted freelancer in the business, it has been my sense that Paizo is creating new opportunities for up and comers like myself that are missing from the 4e world.  Whether it is the Superstar contest creating awareness or simply an influx of publishers looking for some talent, the Pathfinder OGL boom, while smaller than the 3e boom, in some ways reminds me of those heady years.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 28, 2010)

Paizo is indeed doing some good stuff with their various 3pp partners. The paper models for example are a top notch idea.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 28, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Paizo is indeed doing some good stuff with their various 3pp partners. The paper models for example are a top notch idea.





I'm not sure it is completely accurate to say that Paizo is doing good stuff with the 3pps.  For instance, they are not responsible at all for the paper minis.  What they are doing is creating an open environment in which they encourage other people to create.  Which is what an open license should do.  In other words, the Paper minis are a perfect example of what happens in an open gaming environment.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 28, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I'm not sure it is completely accurate to say that Paizo is doing good stuff with the 3pps.  For instance, they are not responsible at all for the paper minis.  What they are doing is creating an open environment in which they encourage other people to create.  Which is what an open license should do.  In other words, the Paper minis are a perfect example of what happens in an open gaming environment.




I'm going to completely disagree because they've put them on the front page of their own store which is not something even remotely required. They've also talked about how useful they were. They talk about utility. 

To me, that's going well and way above what the OGL itself does. 

Imagine if someone at WoTC said something about FIery Dragon's products? It'd be huge. "Man, we found the tolkens in this so useful I can't imagine why we're not doing it ourselves!"


----------



## Wicht (Apr 28, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I'm going to completely disagree because they've put them on the front page of their own store which is not something even remotely required. They've also talked about how useful they were. They talk about utility.
> 
> To me, that's going well and way above what the OGL itself does.
> 
> Imagine if someone at WoTC said something about FIery Dragon's products? It'd be huge. "Man, we found the tolkens in this so useful I can't imagine why we're not doing it ourselves!"




I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.  Paizo staff has said bluntly that they are not responsible in any way for the Paper minis (EDIT: To be clear, the paper minis bearing the Pathfinder Logo are produced under license but Paizo has no real part to play in how or when they come out and they have said so more than once).  But you are correct that they advertise and promote them.

And that is exactly my point.  Paizo puts all sorts of things up on their front page and in their blog.  (though I don't see the paper minis that prominently on the front page at the moment, I know they have been mentioned ).  They regularly point to all the 3pp that support them and Lisa mentions all sorts of non-paizo related stuff as well on the store blog (Like 4e merchandise).  Some of that is because they are advertising things their store sells (naturally) but others are simply because they are gamers first and they are promoting gaming.  A great example of this is the frequent shoutouts to chaosium in the APs and modules; Chaosium of course is a company that is not OGL nor in direct support of Paizo.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 28, 2010)

All Joe is saying is that Paizo works with 3pp PF publishers in a way that WOTC never, ever, did. They advertise them on their front page. I got to Paizo boards several times a day, and I know the first thing I saw many times were advertisements for 3pp products for PAthfinder. Go to their products forum on their message boards and not only do you talk about Paizo products, but 3pp PF products, as well as the stuff sold in their store.

Something the suites at WOTC would have never allowed, and likely never will.

So Paizo supports and promotes even the 3pp's, who are clearly "competition", but Paizo is classy enough to share their field.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 28, 2010)

Treebore said:


> All Joe is saying is that Paizo works with 3pp PF publishers in a way that WOTC never, ever, did. They advertise them on their front page. I got to Paizo boards several times a day, and I know the first thing I saw many times were advertisements for 3pp products for PAthfinder. Go to their products forum on their message boards and not only do you talk about Paizo products, but 3pp PF products, as well as the stuff sold in their store.
> 
> Something the suites at WOTC would have never allowed, and likely never will.
> 
> So Paizo supports and promotes even the 3pp's, who are clearly "competition", but Paizo is classy enough to share their field.




Okay.  I agree with that and its what I thought I was saying too.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 28, 2010)

Treebore said:


> So Paizo supports and promotes even the 3pp's, who are clearly "competition", but Paizo is classy enough to share their field.




Paizo has an online store that sells a lot of these products.  Of course they promote them.


----------



## Elton Robb (Apr 28, 2010)

hmmm . . . 

I love what Paizo is doing.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 28, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Paizo has an online store that sells a lot of these products.  Of course they promote them.




Their promotion however comes across as being more than just trying to sell product for the sake of a sale.  Like I pointed out, they have even give space to a non OGL game/company in the pages of their flagship product more than once.  Not as a paid advertisement but as a goodwill gesture towards another game and gaming system.  When Lisa posts on her store blog about products she is herself using, its not just a salespitch, its the testimonial of a fellow gamer.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 29, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Their promotion however comes across as being more than just trying to sell product for the sake of a sale.  Like I pointed out, they have even give space to a non OGL game/company in the pages of their flagship product more than once.  Not as a paid advertisement but as a goodwill gesture towards another game and gaming system.  When Lisa posts on her store blog about products she is herself using, its not just a salespitch, its the testimonial of a fellow gamer.




Right. I guess I was misreading your saying that the OGL itself was promoting the 'open environment as opposed to Paizo going well beyond anything required in that field and standing up and kicking ass in the name of righteous gaming.


----------



## James Jacobs (Apr 29, 2010)

Because Call of Cthulhu is AWESOME, that's why! 

Also, I approve that these boards correctly spellchecked the word "Cthulhu" and corrected my initial fast-typing of "Ctulhu" to the correct spelling. 

Iä Chaosium!
Iä Enworld!


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 29, 2010)

Treebore said:


> All Joe is saying is that Paizo works with 3pp PF publishers in a way that WOTC never, ever, did. They advertise them on their front page. I got to Paizo boards several times a day, and I know the first thing I saw many times were advertisements for 3pp products for PAthfinder. Go to their products forum on their message boards and not only do you talk about Paizo products, but 3pp PF products, as well as the stuff sold in their store.
> 
> Something the suites at WOTC would have never allowed, and likely never will.
> 
> So Paizo supports and promotes even the 3pp's, who are clearly "competition", but Paizo is classy enough to share their field.




When Fiery Dragon did counters for Keep on the Shadowfell, WotC did openly link to the counters on RPGNow, I seem to remember.  Also, if you look back in the MM2 (3rd edition), you will find two creatures from the Creature Collection by Sword & Sorcery.  (Likewise, most of the creatures from Tome of Horrors by Necromancer games have attributions back to Gary Gygax and old TSR products - which WotC would have had to allowed).  Then there is the whole Ravenloft and Dragonlance line for 3E...

WotC used to be very friendly with 3PP, but they've backed off quite a bit.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 29, 2010)

Ravenloft, Dragonlance, and let's not forget Gamma World.

I don't count that as 'friendly' as opposed to licensed work though. After all, it's not like they let them keep going with the material and in the case of Dragonlance, that just seemed baffling.

I keep hoping Richard Knakk will come out with a game for his Dragon Realms. It was some fun stuff and I see they've started to reprint it.

WoTC also had some OGL content via Unearthed Arcana.

Overall though, WoTC promoting of the game outside of their own massive manor seems lacking. Even when Mike Mearls is talking gaming, he's often talking things like Magic. Eh? Maybe it's just me but I don't recall a lot of card gaming chat coming from Mearls back in the day. 

Things change though so evolve or die I guess.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 29, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> To me, [Paizo goes] well and way above what the OGL itself does.




This. As a young 3rd party publisher, I gotta say that the people at Paizo are the best. Hands down. It goes beyond their website as well, their facebook page and more. 

Everyone at Paizo really does seem to carry the spirit of gaming with them. For this and much more, I wish them many many years of success in business ahead of them.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 29, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> The paper models for example are a top notch idea.




Yeah, and if I may offer an idea to Paizo, it would be rad if you would add some more pictures of the paper minis assembled and in action to your site.

Or if you already have such pictures on your site, please make them easier for me to find. 

/M


----------



## Wicht (Apr 29, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Right. I guess I was misreading your saying that the OGL itself was promoting the 'open environment as opposed to Paizo going well beyond anything required in that field and standing up and kicking ass in the name of righteous gaming.




Any legal document is only as good and useful as the people promoting it allow it to be.

I'm very much a fan of the OGL and the theory behind it, but I recognize that in and of itself it will accomplish nothing.  And, as I've already stated, I think it fairly obvious Wizards of the Coast never took advantage of it after the MM II.  They seemed to have reached a point internally where they saw only that it required them to give and never seemed to fully grasp the possibilities available to them.  Paizo on the other hand has, from the beginning of their AP line, used the OGL as it was intended to be used and I think everyone (Paizo included) has benefitted from this.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 29, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Yeah, and if I may offer an idea to Paizo, it would be rad if you would add some more pictures of the paper minis assembled and in action to your site.
> 
> Or if you already have such pictures on your site, please make them easier for me to find.
> 
> /M




Since you asked

















The last features the paper terrain made by World Works game for the first Legacy of Fire adventure and contains the paper demon mini from the Pathfinder Paper mini line.  There are larger images available if you want to see them better.  Just follow this link and when you see the image you want, click on the option to veiw it in "any size."


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 29, 2010)

Every time I see this thread title, I can't help but think "Whatever happened to Fay Wray?"


----------



## Jadeite (Apr 29, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Every time I see this thread title, I can't help but think "Whatever happened to Fay Wray?"




That delicate satin draped frame?

Good to know I'm not the only one.


----------



## James Jacobs (Apr 29, 2010)

The thing with the OGL is that if it DIDN'T exist, Paizo wouldn't exist in the way it does today. I'm not sure what we would have done after the magazine license went back to WotC—probably would have just turned into a web store for a year and then MAYBE if we lasted we would have tried out some sort of new game or something.

Paizo pretty much owes its existence and success to the open gaming concept, so the way we see it, it's silly for us not to embrace the concept fully and make every bit of rules that we create open as well (with the rare exception of when we do rules for things that we can't secure open content rights to, such as the deep crow or the coeurl).


----------



## Azgulor (Apr 29, 2010)

James Jacobs said:


> The thing with the OGL is that if it DIDN'T exist, Paizo wouldn't exist in the way it does today. I'm not sure what we would have done after the magazine license went back to WotC—probably would have just turned into a web store for a year and then MAYBE if we lasted we would have tried out some sort of new game or something.
> 
> Paizo pretty much owes its existence and success to the open gaming concept, so the way we see it, it's silly for us not to embrace the concept fully and make every bit of rules that we create open as well (with the rare exception of when we do rules for things that we can't secure open content rights to, such as the deep crow or the coeurl).




For all the OGL detractors out there, please read the above post again.  Even if you're not a Paizo customer, you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer who isn't or who hasn't heard about the quality of their products, or a 4E fan who hasn't wished for Paizo-developed 4E content.

IMO, if the *only* benefit derived from the OGL was to enable Paizo to exist in its current form, _*then the OGL was a smashing success*_.

The fact that I have a great RPG library filled with expansions, alternatives, licensed prodcuts, adventures, settings, and yes - some products that competed with WotC core that are still useable with my Pathfinder RPG campaign is frakkin' fantastic.

The OGL kicketh much backside!


----------



## Primal (Apr 29, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> Paizo rolled the dice and (by equally anecdotal accounts) succeeded beyond their best-case scenario.




Not just by anecdotal evidence -- according to ICV2 (and I personally think it's a pretty reliable source on retailer sales) Pathfinder has been #2 in sales rank after its release. Now, that's only short-term information -- and I'm very interested to see how it does in the future, especially when other "hot" titles will be released -- but it does show that Pathfinder outranked, for example, WFRP 3E and WoD in sales.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 30, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> For all the OGL detractors out there, please read the above post again.  Even if you're not a Paizo customer, you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer who isn't or who hasn't heard about the quality of their products, or a 4E fan who hasn't wished for Paizo-developed 4E content.
> 
> IMO, if the *only* benefit derived from the OGL was to enable Paizo to exist in its current form, _*then the OGL was a smashing success*_.




Well, my "detractions" aren't really detractions, per se, just criticisms.

I never said the OGL wasn't good for some companies.   Clearly, for some companies, it did good, like James Jacobs says.  For Paizo, the OGL is really what kept them in business.

But the key thing is, I noticed that the business people describing it are describing it from a business and economic perspective.  This is where my criticisms come in.  When talking about the OGL, there seem to be two main perspectives, similar to the differences between the free software and open source views.  Free software people believe in the ideological value of supporting it, while open source advocates believe in it for economic and other reasons.  Based on the behavior I see on-line, I find the former perspective a little naive and bordering on the Fanatical, and the latter much more even and pragmatic.

Similarly, when OGL seems to come up there are two perspectives.  There are people who believe in the ideology--they think releasing OGL is superior, is what should be done, etc.  This seems to be what most of the game FANS think.

Then there are the various businesses.  They are more pragmatic--they have to be.  They support the OGL not so much for ideologies, but because it makes sense.  But then again, the OGL is not needed for every game.  Like Green Ronin, if Paizo makes a new game, does that mean it's automatically going to be OGL?  It will probably depend on things.

I mean my own view, I am more or less ambivalent about the whole thing.  If the OGL is a success or failure, I don't care, but that doesn't mean it's 100% good or 100% bad.  I think it did some good, but I have doubts about it's long term benefits or whether or not it is an overall net positive for the industry.  And I think some of the proponents--coming from the fan perspective--have trouble seeing this.

A recent article I saw talked about the various economic factors between closed and open:

The tradeoff between open and closed cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog

If you think the OGL is cool, that's fine.  But if you want to debate things like economic effects and benefits and things that usually can be measured like how it affected retailers, businesses, etc., I think a more critical eye is needed, and I think we need to remove emotional attachment to an ideological stance when discussing these items.  For example, was WoTC really "misguided" for removing it, or does having a more closed network lead to more success in the long term?


----------



## Mark (Apr 30, 2010)

Primal said:


> Not just by anecdotal evidence -- according to ICV2 (and I personally think it's a pretty reliable source on retailer sales) Pathfinder has been #2 in sales rank after its release. Now, that's only short-term information -- and I'm very interested to see how it does in the future, especially when other "hot" titles will be released -- but it does show that Pathfinder outranked, for example, WFRP 3E and WoD in sales.





Do WFRP 3E and WoD sell as much online through their own site relative to the retail channels in comparison to Paizo?  Granted an answer of "no" would only make your data even more impressive but I am curious nonetheless.


----------



## Elton Robb (May 1, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> So you're basiucally arguing that WOTC should be happy that giving up basically control of its house system should be seen as a positive when it does NOT lead to an increase in their bottom line?




Actually, WotC can make more money if it did give up control of its house system.  I think they should pass 4e completely into the public domain and do what they always do.

I'm fine with Eberron and Forgotten Realms (and Dark Sun) locked up in Intellectual Monopolies for a while.  But the basic framework, 4e, should be passed into the public domain or licensed under CC.  And that means all of it.

Wizards of the Coast can enjoy being at the top again because everyone will be exposed to D&D.  Generic items can be released under CC, while World Specific ones can be kept with a copyright.  And after a few years, the 4th edition of those worlds can pass into the public domain while Wizards works on the 5th edition.

More and more people will be able to create the derivative works they've always wanted.  I mean, I really wanted to create derivative works with the Kalashtar, Warforged, and say what not.  But Wizards of the Coast had them locked up tight in copyrights and fear and reality holds me back from writing these derivatives.

In effect, I terrorize myself.  I really do think Wizards would benefit a lot if they did that.  A lot of us will have our fear released and we can write again and build on what Wizards had created with 4e.  to be honest, Wizards of the Coast has shot themselves in the foot a couple of times.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 1, 2010)

Elton Robb said:


> Actually, WotC can make more money if it did give up control of its house system.  I think they should pass 4e completely into the public domain and do what they always do.




That would be incredibly stupid.  The market leader releasing things into the public domain makes no economic sense whatsoever.  Even market leaders with a progressive view don't do it until it has little value (for instance, id Sofware releases the engine as Open Source only after they've got a new solid technology in place).  



> Wizards of the Coast can enjoy being at the top again because everyone will be exposed to D&D.  Generic items can be released under CC, while World Specific ones can be kept with a copyright.  And after a few years, the 4th edition of those worlds can pass into the public domain while Wizards works on the 5th edition.




First of all, the worlds are edition independent, so releasing FR or Greyhawk to the public would be an act that wouldn't make sense if WoTC did that.  And if they decided not to use those worlds, I'd rather they be released to Ed Greenwood and Gail Gygax rather than given to the public, as they could then get more money.




> Wizards of the Coast had them locked up tight in copyrights and fear and reality holds me back from writing these derivatives.
> 
> In effect, I terrorize myself.  I really do think Wizards would benefit a lot if they did that.




You are free to create.  You just can't publish or sell your creation.  This is the key thing OGL proponents ignore.  We ALWAYS had the freedom to create, with the only limits on publishing.  

I heard a variation of this old saying.  Goodwill + The Price of a cup of coffee get you a cup of coffee.  All the good will in the world doesn't help your bottom line.  Gary Gygax had a lot of good will but it didn't translate into sales all the time.  It's important to have good will, but you can't please everybody, and just because it's something fans would approve of, it may not make economic sense to do so.

If you're a free culture advocate, simply support those that follow your lead.  But I find most of the FC advocates want more, they want to play with the "big toys" (Disney, WoTC, etc...) and not try to beat the leaders with their own ideologies.  If the Free Culture movement wants to succeed, you should put your products out there to compete, not attempt to force the other companies to follow your ideology.  

This is why I think 3e D&D was a success because it was D&D, not because of the OGL.  The OGL may have helped but I doubt it was the sole or dominating factor.


----------



## Jasperak (May 1, 2010)

Jadeite said:


> That delicate satin draped frame?
> 
> Good to know I'm not the only one.




As it clung to her thigh.

You're not.


----------



## Elton Robb (May 1, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> That would be incredibly stupid.  The market leader releasing things into the public domain makes no economic sense whatsoever.  Even market leaders with a progressive view don't do it until it has little value (for instance, id Sofware releases the engine as Open Source only after they've got a new solid technology in place).




How would it be incredibly stupid?  Why bite the hands that feed you?




> You are free to create.  You just can't publish or sell your creation.  This is the key thing OGL proponents ignore.  We ALWAYS had the freedom to create, with the only limits on publishing.




Ah, you've just listed the problem with Copyright right there in that paragraph.  You've just said, not exactly, that Copyright grants a Monopoly over distribution.  Dude.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 1, 2010)

Elton Robb said:


> How would it be incredibly stupid?  Why bite the hands that feed you?




It's not "biting the hand that feeds you", it's more like owning a store and then deciding to give away all your products.  It might me a nice thing to do, but it's likely going to make you broke.  Even many OGL proponents wouldn't recommend using CC or Public Domain.

Economically, WoTC is in a good position, they are like Apple with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.  What you are proposing makes it harder for them to win because you want to turn a market into what's called "perfect competition", which is the other end of a spectrum from a monopoly.  Perfect competition has downsides, most importantly it prevents anybody from making any sort of profit.  

I won't get into your anti-copyright stances, as I've said my opinions a lot on the subject, so I'll simply talk economics.  The D&D game is not a monopoly since people can and do create other RPGs.  The way to prevent it from becoming a monopoly is to support the alternatives.  It's like Coke--Pepsi and other can compete but they can't copy the existing Coke formula.  

I think a lot of free culture advocates ignore economic costs (as well as social and other costs).  There's a reason why we had a dot-com bubble, and there's a reason why a lot of newspapers are starting to charge for on-line access, and why the DRM and other debates are so important.  I fear a lot of people ignore these equations when advocating their positions.  

I mean, as a human being with a moral compass, I would like Free Health Care for all humanity.  But as an adult who studied economics and other subjects, I know that area is expensive (between research, time, labor, education, and equipment) that you can't get it that way, and even if you provide it too all, somebody has to foot the bill.  

If you want the free culture to succeed, vote with your wallet and don't buy from the company.  The moral stance should be to support games like Eclipse Phase if you believe that, and (most importantly) to make a *sacrifice* and *go without*.  If WoTC see that people are support the competing game over theirs, if sales go down for WoTC AND there's evidence that piracy also goes down, then maybe it will have an impact.  But I think there are too many people not willing to make the sacrifice.


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> MnM was a revelation to me. There was a long thread here about whether a really good superhero game was even possible under d20 rules, and the general conclusion was "nope." Steve, and GR, showed that conclusion to be absurdly wrong.




My contention at the time was (and remains) that you couldn't do it with the framework of the Class/Level system, the use of which was part of the terms for using the D20 logo. So I think calling it absurdly wrong is going a bit far considering it's _technically_ correct.

I do agree there is something to be said for being familiar with fundamental aspects of the d20 system that were carried through to M&M, which may be the spirit of what you are saying.


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> For all the OGL detractors out there, please read the above post again.  Even if you're not a Paizo customer, you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer who isn't or who hasn't heard about the quality of their products, or a 4E fan who hasn't wished for Paizo-developed 4E content.




I don't know if they did it hear, but one of the WotC employees put a put a post up on RPGnet saying (basically) "we hear people don't like our adventures, what can we do to be better?"

And the answers, even in those Paizo-bahsing halls, was mostly just "take notes from Pathfinder." I guarantee that even in these awkward circumstances, many 4e DMs out there are dipping into the Paizo well.


----------



## Elton Robb (May 1, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> It's not "biting the hand that feeds you", it's more like owning a store and then deciding to give away all your products.  It might me a nice thing to do, but it's likely going to make you broke.




Hasbro can make a lot more money by Mainstreaming D&D through Merchandising than by selling D&D books through Wizards of the Coast.  D&D Figures, D&D board games (like D&D Clue), Dungeons and Dragons T-Shirts, Dungeons and Dragons art books, Dungeons and Dragons T.V. shows, and Dungeons and Dragons movies.  Hasbro can make more money than printing the books themselves.  Merchandising is the best way to make a lot of money on a brand that is worth more than the shared creative game itself.

Dungeons and Dragons is so mainstream in the public now that Hasbro can make a killing selling Dungeons and Dragons to people outside the Creative Thinking fans which we are.  We make up only a small part of that market, Hasbro can now mainstream the brand and sell to the public which does not play and make a whole lot more money.

Freeing up the game and not locking it away is a small sacrifice to the bigger market potentials on the Brand itself.  For instance, Hasbro made more money on the (sucky) Dungeons and Dragons movie than the sales of the books combined for the last 30 years.  By working with filmmakers which have money and quality, they can make ten times as much money.  Merchandising is the key to success in a Copyright Free world.



> Even many OGL proponents wouldn't recommend using CC or Public Domain.




Because they haven't thought about what copyright actually favors.  That is the publishing industry, not the artists or creators.



> Economically, WoTC is in a good position, they are like Apple with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.  What you are proposing makes it harder for them to win because you want to turn a market into what's called "perfect competition", which is the other end of a spectrum from a monopoly.  Perfect competition has downsides, most importantly it prevents anybody from making any sort of profit.




MERCHANDISING.  MERCHANDISING. MERCHANDISING.



> I won't get into your anti-copyright stances, as I've said my opinions a lot on the subject, so I'll simply talk economics.  The D&D game is not a monopoly since people can and do create other RPGs.  The way to prevent it from becoming a monopoly is to support the alternatives.  It's like Coke--Pepsi and other can compete but they can't copy the existing Coke formula.




No, it's not a monopoly, it's a brand.  But WotC has an intellectual monopoly on the game rules themselves attached to that brand. 



> I think a lot of free culture advocates ignore economic costs (as well as social and other costs).  There's a reason why we had a dot-com bubble, and there's a reason why a lot of newspapers are starting to charge for on-line access, and why the DRM and other debates are so important.  I fear a lot of people ignore these equations when advocating their positions.




We don't.  We are quite aware of the costs.  Much of the costs economic costs are legal fees and legal transactions.




> If you want the free culture to succeed, vote with your wallet and don't buy from the company.  The moral stance should be to support games like Eclipse Phase if you believe that, and (most importantly) to make a *sacrifice* and *go without*.  If WoTC see that people are support the competing game over theirs, if sales go down for WoTC AND there's evidence that piracy also goes down, then maybe it will have an impact.  But I think there are too many people not willing to make the sacrifice.




Because they don't know any better.  WotC can be making a lot of money by merchandising the brand out in the non-RPG playing public.  Buy giving the game over to us and publishing it as a side show, younger people who can be interested in D&D will buy into D&D.  How many kids became interested in Dungeons and Dragons through the Cartoon show of the mid-eighties?  How many fans now are angry over WotC pulling the plug on PDFs and locking away a significant part of our gamer culture for the past 30 years?

You really think that by supporting Copyright Law your grandchildren will be able to play the historic games of the past?  You are supporting an antiquated publishing model that has shown its age when a machine that is capable of copy and redistribution was invented in the late sixties early seventies.  You are supporting an antiquated publishing model when the Internet came into common use.  You are also supporting censorship in a very real, very powerful way.


----------



## Piratecat (May 1, 2010)

It's okay to discuss the notion of WotC opening up D&D, but this isn't the place for a copyright screed. Let's not go off on that track, please.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 1, 2010)

Elton Robb said:


> Hasbro can make a lot more money by Mainstreaming D&D through Merchandising than by selling D&D books through Wizards of the Coast.  D&D Figures, D&D board games (like D&D Clue), Dungeons and Dragons T-Shirts, Dungeons and Dragons art books, Dungeons and Dragons T.V. shows, and Dungeons and Dragons movies.  Hasbro can make more money than printing the books themselves.  Merchandising is the best way to make a lot of money on a brand that is worth more than the shared creative game itself.




So, basically, you are saying that because they have a valuable property, they should give it up and focus on the merchandising rights?!  I hate to tell you this, but (1) Merchandising rights only work as long as the core product is solid and (2) a lot of players disliked the emphasis of the merchandising of the game over the core competency.




> Freeing up the game and not locking it away is a small sacrifice to the bigger market potentials on the Brand itself.  For instance, Hasbro made more money on the (sucky) Dungeons and Dragons movie than the sales of the books combined for the last 30 years.  By working with filmmakers which have money and quality, they can make ten times as much money.  Merchandising is the key to success in a Copyright Free world.




Ah yes, the old "T-Shirt will make the bands rich" argument.  Ted Ralls brilliant cartoon had this to say about it.







And what does merchandising have to do with the iPod or iPad?  



> We don't.  We are quite aware of the costs.  Much of the costs economic costs are legal fees and legal transactions.




I really don't think you have a good understanding of things.  It's not just legal fees.  There are costs when you remove something.  You need to think about the macro and micro economic models.  You need to review how civilizations worked for decades and centuries.  You need to see it from the whole perspective, not just your own, the consumer.

Oops...sorry PCat, finished posting before your message.


----------



## Piratecat (May 1, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Oops...sorry PCat, finished posting before your message.



I clarified it a bit. So long as this conversation stays game-industry focused, it's generally okay.


----------



## Piratecat (May 1, 2010)

I'm of the opinion that WotC giving away D&D will never happen, _should_ never happen, and would be corporate suicide. They're a publishing house, not a merchandising business; it's not even close to an advantage for them to give away creative control of the thing that they're best at, just so they can try to make money in areas they have no skill or core competencies in. The risk in that is staggering. It's far wiser for them to focus on what they're great at, build the brand, then license that brand to people who can merchandise it for them.

That may not be best for someone who wants to write 4e material without following the GSL, but I think it's definitely best for D&D as a whole.


----------



## Jack99 (May 1, 2010)

Psion said:


> I don't know if they did it hear, but one of the WotC employees put a put a post up on RPGnet saying (basically) "we hear people don't like our adventures, what can we do to be better?"
> 
> And the answers, even in those Paizo-bahsing halls, was mostly just "take notes from Pathfinder." I guarantee that even in these awkward circumstances, many 4e DMs out there are dipping into the Paizo well.




There was a multipage thread here on ENworld as well. And while some certainly just said "look at Pathfinder", it seemed very clear that many others had different opinions of what could be done to make WotC's adventures better.


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 5, 2010)

Some news about Necromancer games. Bill Webb of Necromancer games is starting a new company Frog God Games. They will be doing a subscription for all three of the Slumber Tsar books. They will be sent out by chapter and all three will be updated to Pathfinder rules, with new art and maps.

With the subscription you will get all the chapters sent to you over time for all three books, as well as a hardback book of all three completed and collected Slumber Tsar books. For more information you can go to their web site.

Frog God Games - Home


----------



## DaveMage (May 5, 2010)

Yay!


----------



## froggie (May 8, 2010)

*Slumbering Tsar Subscription is live!*

Frog God Games - Frog God's products can be purchased individually or by subscription.

The Sleeper Awakes!

At last, after languishing in its crypt for an age, the secrets of the slumbering city of Tsar burst forth in all their macabre glory.  Poured forth from the eldritch furnaces and crucibles of the Necromancer and Orcus himself comes Frog God Games bringing you at long last The Slumbering Tsar Saga™.

Something Stirs in the City of Evil 

Over the distant northern hills, beyond The Camp, and past the Desolation stand the pitted walls of Tsar. A hundred armies have crushed themselves against this bulwark in futile attempts to breach the city. Even the combined might of the Heavens and Earth were unable to break through in the final battle of Tsar. So why was the city suddenly abandoned on the verge of victory, and what waits for those foolish enough to enter the Temple-City of Orcus?

The Black Gates Await

Only the bravest and most powerful of heroes dare the depths of the Desolation and live to tell of it. But what happens when they penetrate that blasted landscape and look upon the gates of the very center of evil on the earth. Can even heroes of such renown breach the Walls of Death and live?

The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ began its journey years ago as a single mega-adventure for the masters of Third Edition rules and First Edition feel, then became a trilogy of adventures, then a trilogy of mega-adventures, and now finally comes to you as a monthly series culminating in a massive book with over a half million words of pure First Edition-style adventure.  Updated to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game to accommodate today’s audience of the classic fantasy roleplaying game, The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ brings you 14 chapters, released monthly in electronic format, each chapter the size of a full adventure in its own right (30-50 pages) .  Then when the final chapter has been released, the whole will be available in a classic edition, hardcover adventure book.

The Slumbering Tsar Saga™ will begin its run with the release of its first chapter, Slumbering Tsar: The Desolation, Part 1 —The Edge of Oblivion.  Then each month will follow a new chapter in the saga:

Slumbering Tsar: The Desolation, Part 2 —The Ghosts of Victory

Slumbering Tsar: The Desolation, Part 3—The Western Front

Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 1 —The Tower of Weeping Sores

Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 2 —The Lower City 

Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 3 —The Harrow Lanes

Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 4 —The Crooked Tower

Slumbering Tsar: Temple-City of Orcus, Part 5 —Foundations of Infamy

Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 1 —At the Feet of Orcus

Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 2 —Echoes of Despair

Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 3 —The Throne of the Demon Prince 

Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 4 —In the Belly of the Beast

Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 5 —The Mind of Chaos

Slumbering Tsar: The Hidden Citadel, Part 6 —Caverns of the Barrier


----------



## DaveMage (May 8, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Yay!




Ditto!


----------



## Qwillion (May 8, 2010)

Its an interesting business model selling by subscription only.


----------



## froggie (May 8, 2010)

*sub only*

Not really--other options available soon. You may buy 1 chapter at a time as well; but not until they are ready (chapter 1 later this week).


----------



## Mark (May 8, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'm of the opinion that WotC giving away D&D will never happen, _should_ never happen, and would be corporate suicide. They're a publishing house, not a merchandising business; it's not even close to an advantage for them to give away creative control of the thing that they're best at, just so they can try to make money in areas they have no skill or core competencies in.





What they are "best at" is CCGs.  Many would argue that RPGs are done much better elsewhere.  However, Hasbro isn't going to get rid of any property under it.  Hasbro wouldn't allow the sale (or the "giving away") of D&D.


----------



## William Ronald (May 8, 2010)

Mark said:


> What they are "best at" is CCGs.  Many would argue that RPGs are done much better elsewhere.  However, Hasbro isn't going to get rid of any property under it.  Hasbro wouldn't allow the sale (or the "giving away") of D&D.




Hasbro is interested in holding on to valuable properties and making money of it, either through new products, tie-in ventures with other companies (such as video game licensing), or through merchandising.

I doubt that Hasbro would ever sell WotC, as the collectible card games (the core of WotC's business and profits) provide them with a steady income stream.  While Hasbro has other more valuable properties, I cannot think of a logical business reason for Hasbro to sell such a valuable property as WotC.  Nor is there a history of Hasbro selling off its divisions.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 8, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'm of the opinion that WotC giving away D&D will never happen, _should_ never happen, and would be corporate suicide. They're a publishing house, not a merchandising business; it's not even close to an advantage for them to give away creative control of the thing that they're best at, just so they can try to make money in areas they have no skill or core competencies in. The risk in that is staggering. It's far wiser for them to focus on what they're great at, build the brand, then license that brand to people who can merchandise it for them.
> 
> That may not be best for someone who wants to write 4e material without following the GSL, but I think it's definitely best for D&D as a whole.



It might be best for WotC and Hasbro, or at least they might think it is, but it's definitely *not* the best for D&D as a whole.

I just loved they way that the OGL moved my favourite RPG away from a dying Copyright Regime. Now it seems it will die with it instead. That's just sad.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 8, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> It might be best for WotC and Hasbro, or at least they might think it is, but it's definitely *not* the best for D&D as a whole.




There is nothing "dying" about copyright. This is an extremist view.

I concur with Piratecat's assessment.


----------



## BryonD (May 8, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> There is nothing "dying" about copyright. This is an extremist view.
> 
> I concur with Piratecat's assessment.




I want to mostly agree with you.  But the "extremist" tag is really petty rhetoric.  (And silly to boot)

Dungeons and Dragons THE BRAND and WotC the company are best served by protectionism.  There are advantages to Open gaming that benefited WotC, but the disadvantage of being forced to compete more directly clearly outweighed the advantages.  

And harming copyright would be disastrous.  

But if you are not hung up on brand loyalty, then tabletop roleplaying is better served by open gaming than the GSL approach.  

But it gets more complicated, because seriously harming the flagship brand could do more harm than Open gaming does good, at least in the short term.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 8, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Dungeons and Dragons THE BRAND and WotC the company are best served by protectionism.  There are advantages to Open gaming that benefited WotC, but the disadvantage of being forced to compete more directly clearly outweighed the advantages.




Lot's o' disagreement on that point (and I would say not just from me).

To fail to maintain a competitive edge is, I think, a very bad idea.

But, I think you mispeak.  "Protectionism" is not the same as protecting intellectual property.  Protecting intellectual property is a competitive statement: You are forcing competitors to create their own property.

Even so, there are problems, where your intellectual property is a sandbox for folks to tell stories.

Also, were there ever any truly competing products?  For all the talk of open this an open that, the only effect that I could tell was a muddying of product quality.  Some was great, and a lot was rather mediocre.

Not that WotC is actually putting out much of the vast IP that they hold.

Thx!


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 8, 2010)

If the OGL was truly economically beneficial to WoTC, I doubt they would have dropped it.  I mean, they are the best to know, and have access to their own accounting research, as well as marketing research.  And if the OGL was really the superior way to publish, you would have seen a lot more companies take it up than the few (non 3e D&D-based) that have.

Like I said above, a lot of people praise the OGL not so much for true economic benefits, but more about their belief in it.  Most of the arguments I see for it, don't come from the publishers, but the enthusiasts, many of who are thinking as gamers first (and the OGL only allowed you to publish work, you always were able to create on your own, so there's no real freedom that affects a gamer).

Belief does not equal Proof.  It's okay to believe in a theory but it has to be proven, otherwise it may fail.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 8, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> There is nothing "dying" about copyright. This is an extremist view.



No, it's a visionary view. Copyright will die soon. 300 years is long enough.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 8, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> No, it's a visionary view. Copyright will die soon. 300 years is long enough.




Considering the fact that most nations support WIPO and seeing the economic costs happening because of some corporate stupidity (newspapers are erecting paywalls when they should never have given away their content in the first place, which a lot of players did in the dot com boom thinking eyeballs = profit), I think you're too optimistic with your estimate, assuming the anti-copyright movement doesn't die off as a cultural meme the same way communal living did.

I doubt you'll see it abolished in your lifetime.


----------



## Psion (May 8, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> If the OGL was truly economically beneficial to WoTC, I doubt they would have dropped it.




Hmm.

It could have been beneficial *at the time* *for a WotC not associated with Hasbro*. IOW, the designers at the time knew that the game benefited from small print run items that it didn't make much sense for them to print themselves.

And it might not be economically beneficial for *WotC under Hasbro* *now*, when fantasy online gaming is big business, and Hasbro's business model derives from monetizing IP.

Times and situations are different.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 8, 2010)

Psion said:


> Times and situations are different.




The key thing is, the OGL style of licensing game property is still something brand new, and like anything new, we don't know how well it will work both short and long term.

Ryan was most likely inspired by Open Source software licenses, but what might work for software (because its so complex you need to usually pay for a programmer or for dedicated support) may not work as well for games.  (And technically OSS is new too, but so is the concept of software).

Long term effects on things like markets and environment sometimes can't be measured in the lab and/or theoretical modeling.  Economics itself is still learning and can be sidetracked by belief in ideology.  

The OGL may be a significant part of the future, or it may not and become a very minor force.  So far, I think the latter is going to be true.  Right now the only advantage it has is for publishers who are using the roots of the 3e SRD.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 8, 2010)

> The OGL may be a significant part of the future, or it may not and become a very minor force. So far, I think the latter is going to be true. Right now the only advantage it has is for publishers who are using the roots of the 3e SRD.




The #1 game in the industry no longer uses it, but even in 3e, WotC didn't make OGL a major part of their philosophy (most of WotC's 3e stuff isn't OGL). 

I think it speaks a lot to the effectiveness that the #2 game in the industry is fully embracing it, and the #1 game in the industry still nods in that direction with a slightly muddier, slightly more restrictive, but still-in-spirit-essentially-very-similar kind of licence. As it did with the d20 Licence during 3e.

I don't know how being a part of the two biggest games in the entire PnP RPG industry for a decade qualifies as "a minor force" in any light, but maybe you have some insight I don't.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 9, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't know how being a part of the two biggest games in the entire PnP RPG industry for a decade qualifies as "a minor force" in any light, but maybe you have some insight I don't.




Well, 4e GSL is definitely not the OGL, so much so that most of the 3pp ended their relationships with WoTC by not going 4e.  I think others will agree that the GSL is not an "open" license by any means.  Licensing has ALWAYS existed, since Judges Guild licensed D&D.  But there were always limits, much more like the typical licensing rights.   So, no, WoTC is not supporting "open gaming" as a philosophy anymore.  And that's the primary chunk of its use.  

If the #2 publisher is Paizo (I thought it was either Games Workshop or White Wolf), then you missed my statement about those "dependent on the 3e edition ruleset".  By rights, any ruleset derived from the 3rd Edition has to be OGL--the publishers have no real choice in the matter.  And Pathfinder proves to me that the value of the OGL was not based on its openness, but on the relationship to D&D.  It's true that the OGL helped Paizo, but Paizo's existance in table top RPGs right now is to continue the game system that WoTC abandoned.

Pathfinder exists in part because WoTC facilitated the creation of Paizo by spinning off their Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and that company ended up benefiting from a lot of the attention as well as ex-WoTC staff.  They are not the typical 3pp, because of that once existing relationship.  So I don't think they are typical.

If the OGL was the great force some people thought, then every major publisher should have adopted it, and converted their systems to it.  I suspect economically it doesn't make much sense to use it if you don't have to.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 9, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> If the OGL was the great force some people thought, then every major publisher should have adopted it, and converted their systems to it.  I suspect economically it doesn't make much sense to use it if you don't have to.




Unfortunately the OGL is a flawed experiment. WotC didn't do what they were supposed to do with the OGL. Sure they put it out there and let people play in their pool. But they didn't take any real dips. The real value of the OGL was never exploited by WotC (sort of**). The cause of this was because not everyone was on board with the Open Gaming concept and then the sale to Hasbro had to have put a damper on just how open WotC could be.

The whole point of the OGL was that if you did anything with it, anyone else could build on your stuff --so could WotC but they never did. 3.x could have been a much better game if some of the outside work had been adopted into D&D. But that would have required the D&D books to have the OGL in them and actually do it right. MM2 and UA were too little and too late.

It will be interesting to see if Paizo ever pulls OGL stuff into a Pathfinder release. Since Paizo books already have the OGL in them, it can't hurt to pull some things out of other OGL sources. The line where you are just reprinting other works though does become an issue that makes this a difficult thing to do.

** Of course a lot of 4e is built on innovations done in OGL products and by OGC authors hired by WotC. So saying WotC didn't get value from the OGL is just wrong.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (May 9, 2010)

*my two cents*

I think copyright in some form has to exist so that artists can eat, but personally I think a 15 year copyright period, nonextendable, would be fine. The existing copyright regime is excessive, and has been crafted to serve a few corporations such as Disney, without regard for the public good. 

WRT to the OGL, one substantial benefit in my eyes is that it establishes a floor in how sucky D&D can become.  Every version of D&D that gets released in the future now has to compete with the OGL version.  And people whose interests don't reflect the mainstream -- those who 'age out of the market', for example -- will have their interests served by niche versions, like Trailblazer.

Without the OGL some of that could still happen, but the lack of a legal safe harbor would leave small publishers vulnerable to being sued out of existence.  

Ken


----------



## Wicht (May 9, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> It will be interesting to see if Paizo ever pulls OGL stuff into a Pathfinder release. Since Paizo books already have the OGL in them, it can't hurt to pull some things out of other OGL sources. The line where you are just reprinting other works though does become an issue that makes this a difficult thing to do.




Um, in point of fact Paizo uses OGL material in almost all of their books.  And not just OGL material from the WotC SRD either.  The Bestiary has stuff from Tome of Horror for instance.  They regularly use the Advanced Bestiary in their modules and APs.  So if you are interested in seeing if Paizo "ever" does this, wait no longer; they do.  Paizo is using the OGL the way it was meant to be used and its not hurting their products a single bit.


----------



## BryonD (May 9, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Lot's o' disagreement on that point (and I would say not just from me).



 Sure.  I have no doubt.



> To fail to maintain a competitive edge is, I think, a very bad idea.



In the long term I 100% agree with you.



> But, I think you mispeak.  "Protectionism" is not the same as protecting intellectual property.  Protecting intellectual property is a competitive statement: You are forcing competitors to create their own property.



 No, I spoke correctly.  Relative to the OGL Wotc has moved in a protectionist direction.  That is their right.



> Even so, there are problems, where your intellectual property is a sandbox for folks to tell stories.
> 
> Also, were there ever any truly competing products?  For all the talk of open this an open that, the only effect that I could tell was a muddying of product quality.  Some was great, and a lot was rather mediocre.
> 
> ...



It has nothing to do with product A or Product B being competitive with Wotc's latest Complete XYZ.  If X% goes to the 3PP market and 100-X% goes to WotC then the 3PP market is competing.  One can argue that 100-x% of a larger pie may be more than 100% of a smaller pie.  But if WotC felt that was the case, then they would still be going for the larger pie.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 9, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Um, in point of fact Paizo uses OGL material in almost all of their books.  And not just OGL material from the WotC SRD either.  The Bestiary has stuff from Tome of Horror for instance.  They regularly use the Advanced Bestiary in their modules and APs.  So if you are interested in seeing if Paizo "ever" does this, wait no longer; they do.  Paizo is using the OGL the way it was meant to be used and its not hurting their products a single bit.




I meant more of a splat book or core rulebook. Monsters are generally "unique" in that they appear in a specific module for a specific encounter. I want to see some OGC sorcerer bloodlines in a PF Player's Options style book. WotC should have incorporated some 3rd party stuff into 3.5 when they were upgrading the edition in my view of how the OGL failed.


----------



## Wicht (May 9, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> I meant more of a splat book or core rulebook. Monsters are generally "unique" in that they appear in a specific module for a specific encounter. I want to see some OGC sorcerer bloodlines in a PF Player's Options style book. WotC should have incorporated some 3rd party stuff into 3.5 when they were upgrading the edition in my view of how the OGL failed.




Well, again, the Bestiary is pretty core and it gleans monsters from outside the SRD. 

I disagree with the idea that the OGL failed.  Rather, I think it more accurate to say that WotC failed in using it properly. (which means I am agreeing with your thought, just not your wording)  The OGL is still alive and kicking and the experiment is by no means over.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 9, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I disagree with the idea that the OGL failed.




I misspoke. I didn't mean to say the OGL failed. I meant that WotC's OGL experiment failed. I stated this more accurately in my earlier post.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Well, 4e GSL is definitely not the OGL, so much so that most of the 3pp ended their relationships with WoTC by not going 4e. I think others will agree that the GSL is not an "open" license by any means. Licensing has ALWAYS existed, since Judges Guild licensed D&D. But there were always limits, much more like the typical licensing rights. So, no, WoTC is not supporting "open gaming" as a philosophy anymore. And that's the primary chunk of its use.




They support other people making books for 4e with the GSL. In effect, that's what the OGL did for 3e. It's not as open as it could be, but, again, WotC was always reluctant to embrace the OGL. They added psionics and Unearthed Arcana, which was certainly something, but 90% of the books were still closed. I think it's something of a judgement call, but I don't think think WotC really supported "open gaming" as a philosophy, ever. They just saw a way to maybe sell more PHB's and outsource adventure-writing.

The GSL certainly wasn't necessary from WotC, but it was still derived (late and restrictive as it is) as a way to help maybe sell more PHB's and outsource stuff WotC doesn't want to do that there's still demand for. Which was the same strategy that the OGL had from WotC's point of view. It was never a fully embraced philosophy.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> If the #2 publisher is Paizo (I thought it was either Games Workshop or White Wolf), then you missed my statement about those "dependent on the 3e edition ruleset". By rights, any ruleset derived from the 3rd Edition has to be OGL--the publishers have no real choice in the matter. And Pathfinder proves to me that the value of the OGL was not based on its openness, but on the relationship to D&D. It's true that the OGL helped Paizo, but Paizo's existance in table top RPGs right now is to continue the game system that WoTC abandoned.




Yes, but certainly the fact that the #2 game in the industry uses OGL extensively means that the thing is hardly a blip or a failure, regardless of the fact that its success is based on an old edition of D&D. Whatever its origins, it's still going quite strong. 

And that also ignores several of the other games that have gone OGL that aren't D&D-based. They're minor, but, then, almost every game that's not D&D is pretty minor in this industry.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> If the OGL was the great force some people thought, then every major publisher should have adopted it, and converted their systems to it. I suspect economically it doesn't make much sense to use it if you don't have to.




Pfft. That's kind of like saying if Open Source software was a great force, then every major computer manufacturer would have adopted it. Apple and Windows certainly speak against that idea. 

I don't think the OGL needs to be omnipresent to be significant. I think being hinted at in the #1 game in the industry (GSL) and being embraced by the #2 game in the industry (OGL) is quite a significant thing for an idea that is essentially radically different from what the standard model of game publishing had been up to that point. It's not going anywhere anytime soon, and I don't know how someone could look at Pathfinder and 4e with a straight face and say that the OGL was a minor blip and a failure and a doomed heresey. 

It's here, it works, and it's sticking around for the forseeable future. It's not the second coming of Gutenberg, but it doesn't need to be in order to be a notable presence.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 9, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> I think you're too optimistic with your estimate, assuming the anti-copyright movement doesn't die off as a cultural meme the same way communal living did.
> 
> I doubt you'll see it abolished in your lifetime.




I doubt you'll see it abolished. Ever. "Ever" is as big a word as it comes.

The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement.  One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.

There have been significant technological inroads which have, on a practical basis, undermined the distribution models used by some cutural industries in the past to make money.

There has not, however, been a lessening _at any time _of the laws of copyright.  The increase of copyright as a legal regime has increased over the last 30 years worldwide -- it has not decreased. This is an undebatable fact.


----------



## xechnao (May 9, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement.  One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.
> 
> ... This is an undebatable fact.




Slavery was considered a normal event in economy and society up to 100 years ago.

Copyright is mostly a creditor's financial right. As the economic infrastructures and practices change, copyright could very well go the way of the do-do.

Internet, as a new infrastructure of economy and society has been creating some new data on the field, regarding information. Trade and credit globalization are even much more important and we just stared struggling to understand and take control of it.

What the end result will be on contractual economic practices like copyright? You just never now.


----------



## the Jester (May 9, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement.  One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.




It's not the place for this discussion, but I totally disagree with you here.


----------



## ruemere (May 9, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> [...]
> The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement.  One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.
> [...]




-1, flamebait.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Maggan (May 9, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Pfft. That's kind of like saying if Open Source software was a great force, then every major computer manufacturer would have adopted it. Apple and Windows certainly speak against that idea.




I do believe that Apple has partly adopted open source software, i.e. using and distributing Webkit and the Darwin kernel for OS X. For sure, the majority of Apple's software isn't open source, but they used the model with Wbkit with great success to further their own agenda and profitability.

More info here.

How this would translate to the rpg business is of course difficult to say, but if Paizo continues to adopt 3rd party open content, and maybe lend even more support to OGL repositries like the Grand OGL wiki they could further their own agenda as well as that of open gaming.

If companies like Green Ronin and Malhavoc would start supporting e.g. The Grand OGL wiki, I think that open source gaming would become much, much stronger.

/M


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2010)

*Hmm.

Remember the halcyon days of post #302?  I was clear about not delving back into copyright issues. I'm disappointed the thread has strayed - nah, charged headlong - back in that direction. There is enough of a hijack that I'm not convinced it's worth keeping open.

Thread closed.*


----------

