# Charles Ryan on Adventures



## MerricB (Oct 5, 2005)

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7428519

*Merric:* Are you able to tell us anything about how the D&D team would like to proceed with the publication of adventures? Would you like them to be an ongoing feature? (Perhaps 6-12 a year?) Or is this a limited experiment that will pause for feedback/sales reports in the near future?

*Charles:* As many people on these boards know, when third edition and the d20 License launched, we thought a lot of third parties would see adventures for D&D as a great opportunity. WotC published a spate of them early on (the adventure path, Return to the Temple) to sort of get the ball rolling, but after that we left the category to the third-party publishers.

Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else). As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)

D&D players have made it clear that they're interested in adventures (as you make clear in this very thread), and we're listening!

As you know, we don't generally discuss titles more than about nine months ahead of release, so I can't give you any specifics. I will say this: we think this hole in the marketplace is a long-term phenomenon, so we're looking at long-term solutions!


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 5, 2005)

Um, that's odd, because the truism I heard a lot of publishers saying after about, oh . . . *checks watch* 2002 was that adventures and campaign settings don't sell. Maybe all the folks were wrong, but if we look at two of the biggest d20 publishers - Mongoose and Green Ronin - they don't put out many adventures, do they?

Of course, they don't directly compete with WotC anymore. They make things WotC doesn't. Hell, smart publishers of any size make things WotC doesn't. E.N. Publishing makes books focusing on niche items (one exotic weapon, or a bunch of random magic items, or monsters for a specific habitat), along with the occasional experimental new system book (Elements of Magic, Steam & Steel, Mechamancy).

WotC certainly has better production values than most of the d20 publishers (but not all), and they have a larger market presence to be sure. But saying that they make things _better_ than d20 publishers is a little silly. Honestly, WotC is the core of the D&D market. They should make core material, like more feats, classes, monsters, spells. And adventures that use those things.

The third party publishers then would make weird stuff like new rules components (see E.N. Publishing), strange adventures (see Goodman Games), and small bits that aren't cost effective for WotC to produce (see Ronin Arts and tons of other pdf publishers).

Honestly, Mr. Ryan's tone is a little confrontational. It sounds like he blames 3rd party publishers for not playing along, which is a little worrying. A world where WotC does not like 3rd party publishers is not a good world for me, and I doubt it'd be a good world for a lot of EN Worlders.

What I'd like to see is WotC doing more to encourage 3rd party publishers. I know they're a big company and traditional business models say it's stupid to give you competitors publicity, but obviously Mr. Ryan believes 3rd party publishers should not compete with WotC. Therefore, wouldn't it be wise for WotC to offer up some space on their website to announcing 3rd party products that they like? 

Sure, it'd be biased as heck, since they'd never promote a product that honestly competes with them, but it'd be a nice way to encourage 3rd party publishers to fill the niches WotC wants filled. If you could go to their site and see "10 cool adventures" being discussed and promoted, I bet publishers would start working on adventures, in the hope of WotC giving them the nod.

I really hope Mr. Ryan is not trying to imply that the 3rd party publishers somehow failed, or that any downturn in sales is their fault. I would love to have interviewed Peter Adkison 5 years ago and asked him what path he thought 3rd party publishing would take. Does anyone by chance have such an interview?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 5, 2005)

Charles Ryan said:
			
		

> As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)



I know it's his job, but this sort of disinformation comes off as almost malicious.

Goodman Games and Necromancer Games don't publish adventures? And they're struggling? And their adventures are worse than the Adventure Path?

Methinks Mr. Ryan needs a shipment from both companies to show him the error of his ways.

WotC _wishes_ it had adventures of the quality of the DCCs.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I know it's his job, but this sort of disinformation comes off as almost malicious.




Actually he is not wrong.  There have not been many adventures, Goodman Games and Necormancer are the exceptions really.  And many d20 companies have droppped in business. You are really reading things that are not there.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 5, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Actually he is not wrong.  There have not been many adventures, Goodman Games and Necormancer are the exceptions really.  And many d20 companies have droppped in business. You are really reading things that are not there.



Given how few major D20 publishers are out there, I think it's hard to categorize two of the biggest as "exceptions."


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Given how few major D20 publishers are out there, I think it's hard to categorize two of the biggest as "exceptions."




Ya, it was hard to categorize them that way, but I managed.


----------



## Pramas (Oct 5, 2005)

That post is funny on so many levels.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Oct 5, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> That post is funny on so many levels.




I'm not laughing though.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else). As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)




I've been buying quite a bit of Green Ronin product on RPGNow.  Most of it's better than the recent stuff from WotC.

Hmmmm.  :\

Sam


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> That post is funny on so many levels.




Share the funny Chris, please?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 6, 2005)

Whatever.  More better adventures = happy RPGers, regardless of who is making them.  Market competition is good for the consumer IMHO.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 6, 2005)

I think the 20th levels and rate of advancement, welcomes campaign length adventures, perhaps not published in one block like Shackled City but in 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 chunks for example.

I imagine most DM's that buy adventures do so because they don't have time to plan their own, due to other commitments but then have trouble sometimes making one short adventure mesh with the next one. Campaign length adventures would remove all those issues, they could also warrent hardback, or boxed set realeases with maps and the like which folks seem to like.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make *(and make better than anyone else).*



I find the unbridled arrogance of WotC employees so off-putting.


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

I think this topic has come up before. To recount the astute observation from last time (Chris was the source of one or more of these iirc):


Those "not competing with WotC" by making adventures would be "competing with Dungeon." A hard act to follow, cost and presentation wise.
Modules aren't where the money are. Beings that third party publishers don't have the market presence of WotC to begin with, they would be competing for an even MORE miniscule segment of the market.
Necromancer and Goodman games are SURVIVORS of the module market. Others that tried their hand at it couldn't keep up and moved onto other things or out of the business entirely.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 6, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Um, that's odd, because the truism I heard a lot of publishers saying after about, oh . . . *checks watch* 2002 was that adventures and campaign settings don't sell. Maybe all the folks were wrong, but if we look at two of the biggest d20 publishers - Mongoose and Green Ronin - they don't put out many adventures, do they?




I think the unfair comparison with the "adventures don't sell" thing, is that most of that early stuff was utter garbage. It's not that people don't want adventures IMO, it's that the barrier of entry was so low, people stopped buying all kinds of products.

It'd be interesting to see how Black Sails Over Freeport sold for instance.

But, as Pramas said on another thread some time ago, adventure's from everywhere must compete with Dungeon, and I think that's hard to do on a small scale. I still think adventures that were imaginative and attractive would sell, but I think the cash return on the Time & Energy investment makes it not worth it for the larger companies. So it's kind of a catch-22.

Still, the antagonism that seems to be brewing sometimes between WotC and some of the D20 companies, really has been boiling over lately, judging by past threads. I've crossed a couple companies off the Buy List because of their responses to discussions.


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I find the unbridled arrogance of WotC employees so off-putting.




Heh. If they were "doing it better than anyone else", one wonders why they felt the need to bring in a bunch of freelancers for their next generation of books.

Books which, for the first time in a while, have me anxious in anticipation of supplemental rulebooks.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Oct 6, 2005)

Well, my response is pretty much unprintable according to the board's rules.

But I think it's odd that Charles Ryan would be surprised that people might choose to pull a chair up to the buffet rather than knife fight over the scraps beneath the table. 


Patrick Y.


----------



## loki44 (Oct 6, 2005)

I agree with all of Crothian's posts here, which is why I made him one of my choices as an Ennie Judge.  I've got much love for Goodman and Necromancer and WOTC.  I've bought adventures from all of them  (almost all of which I'll never use btw).  It's all good. And Mr. Ryan can say whatever he wants.  Who cares?  A little competitive energy never hurt anything.  I hope his comments spur an adventure publishing craze like we haven't seen since the days Judge's Guild had an official D&D license.

Grognards for diaglo!  Please vote.....


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 6, 2005)

Perhaps what Chris thinks is funny is that a bunch of companies *did* try sticking to adventures at the beginning and, other than Necromancer, struggled compared to the companies that went straight after the sourcebooks in the style of what WotC makes. 

I have a sneaky suspicion that Mongoose's Quint series funded a bunch of the major license acquisitions it made.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> But I think it's odd that Charles Ryan would be surprised that people might choose to pull a chair up to the buffet rather than knife fight over the scraps beneath the table.



Quoted for emphasis.


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 6, 2005)

The areas where 3rd parties excel, are those areas neglected by WotC. Original settings, d20 variants, that sort of thing.

I don't think Charles Ryan meant to say that WotC is better than all third party publishers. I think he meant that no other 3rd party publisher is going to be able to compete with WotC in terms of making core 3.5 compatible sourcebooks. Which is basically true.

However, although what Ryan says is sort of true, there is a critical fact missing. Most d20 publishers don't even really compete with WotC anymore. Its easy to be the number 1 publisher of generic 3.5 D&D sourcebooks when no other publisher is making those books anymore.

The survivors of the d20 bust have become quite specialized and focused. I go to Green Ronin for M&M or to AEG for Spycraft, or Mongoose for Conan. These are great products filling a niche that WotC is not.

And when people talk about adventures selling or not selling, I think a distinction needs to be made between modules and campaigns. Modules don't sell. But I think there is a seriously massive untapped market out there for complete level 1 to 20 (or beyond) campaigns. But let me put a qualifier on that. I don't think any old hodge podge of adventures from El Cheapo games will work. Gamers want high quality. And they want to be able to play a continuous story from low level on into high level without a drop in quality.

My group could care less about your average module, but when Shackled City came out, we were all over that. Shackled City is a busy DM's dream come true. Well written, well edited, glossy full color pages, professional maps, and even player handouts! This is how you sell adventures!!

Is it expensive? Yes, but worth every penny and it allows us to take our PCs from level 1 to 20 all with minimal work on the part of the DM. And even better, is the adventures are somewhat episodic becuase they came out of Dungeon magazine. This means that if you take a month off from DMing, you don't have to reread the entire freaking book to refamiliarize yourself with everything. You just reread the adventure you stopped on. Brilliant!

I truly hope Paizo has started something big here.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 6, 2005)

Charles Ryan said:
			
		

> As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years.




I have enough adventures, thanks to AEG, Goodman, Kenzer, and Necromancer, to last a lifetime, so I really don't get this statement.

I'm thrilled WotC is doing adventures because I love them.  However, to simply dismiss the work of NG and Goodman as part of a "largely empty" market, well, I'm not buying it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> sourcebooks of the sort we already make (*and make better than anyone else*).



Oh dear.

How wrong can one person be?


----------



## Akrasia (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> ... WotC published a spate of them early on (the adventure path, Return to the Temple) to sort of get the ball rolling, but after that we left the category to the third-party publishers.
> 
> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else). As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)
> ...




Actually, it's a surprise that so many d20 publishers are still around, despite initially publishing bunches of adventures.

(If you want 3rd party publishers to do what you want, give them money to do so.)


----------



## Akrasia (Oct 6, 2005)

I get the sense that these were not the replies that MerricB was expecting.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 6, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I have enough adventures, thanks to AEG, Goodman, Kenzer, and Necromancer, to last a lifetime, so I really don't get this statement.
> 
> I'm thrilled WotC is doing adventures because I love them.  However, to simply dismiss the work of NG and Goodman as part of a "largely empty" market, well, I'm not buying it.




ACtually, I do see what he means - in comparison to everything else released, adventures make up a relatively small number of releases. Other than the DCC's and Necromancer releases, there are not many adventures showing up at the FLGS's I go to. And in any given month, there may not even be a DCC released. There are quite a few new rules supplements, settings, or new games showing up every month.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 6, 2005)

> Posted by *Dragonblade*: I don't think Charles Ryan meant to say that WotC is better than all third party publishers. I think he meant that no other 3rd party publisher is going to be able to compete with WotC in terms of making core 3.5 compatible sourcebooks. Which is basically true.




I agree.  It could be taken as being contraversial, but I merely think he is saying WotC will always sell more of the core books.  Wording may have not been that good though   

Anyhow, that is not why I am here.  Arguments bore me   I am here to cast a vote for more of the 'adventure path' type adventures.  Dito on what Dragonblade says re these products below 

Dungeon does the small 'one'off' adventure well and I doubt there is much room for new companies to produce modules, but extended, campaign one-offs...I too hope that Shackled City has started something here


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I get the sense that these were not the replies that MerricB was expecting.




ACtually, I doubt he's surprised, En Worlds has been nasty anti Wizards at times in many threads he starts.  Its really a shame, he does a nice job of giving us intereting info from them.


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Actually he is not wrong.  There have not been many adventures, Goodman Games and Necormancer are the exceptions really.  And many d20 companies have droppped in business. You are really reading things that are not there.



True, but Ryan is suggesting that not making adventures is the reason why many d20 publishers are struggling these days, a rather ludicrous proposition.    Yes, the drop in module publishing is correlated with drops in d20 company profits, just like murder rates are correlated with ice cream sales.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 6, 2005)

Charles Ryan said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make *(and make better than anyone else)*. As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)




*CHOKE!*

Ummm, yeah, so much better... that is why I buy so much more non-WotC source material than official WotC material...

The Auld Grump


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ACtually, I doubt he's surprised, En Worlds has been nasty anti Wizards at times in many threads he starts.



I doubt it too, but I haven't seen any "nasty anti Wizards" (evil rogues?) in this thread, so far.




			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Its really a shame



I disagree.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> (and make better than anyone else).




Yeah, right.  I can't think of ONE product from WOTC that isn't done better by some 3rd party publisher.

FR vs Scarred Lands/Wilderlands/Midnight
Complete Warrior vs Player's Guide to Fighters and Barbarians/Path of the Sword
Waterdeep vs CSIO
ETools vs well, ETools  

That covers campaign settings, splatbooks, city sourcebooks and electronic aids.  I'm sure there are plenty other examples.  The only one of WOTC products above that even competes is the FR campaign setting.  It was actually done well - it may not be everyone's cup of tea - but it was done well.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ACtually, I doubt he's surprised, En Worlds has been nasty anti Wizards at times in many threads he starts.  Its really a shame, he does a nice job of giving us intereting info from them.



I hope he never stops doing it. It's a great service.

But I don't think there's an anti-WotC attitude around here. People have positively gushed over a lot of their recent releases, especially the environment books. (The worst thing said about Stormwrack that I can recall is "it's different than what I expected.") But when they do something less than great, like make wildly inaccurate and somewhat insulting statements, why should posters not respond to that as well?

And I don't recall anyone ever shooting the messenger (Merric) and if they did, they're ninnies.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ACtually, I doubt he's surprised, En Worlds has been nasty anti Wizards at times in many threads he starts.  Its really a shame, he does a nice job of giving us intereting info from them.




I'm not seeing this thread as anti-Wizards or even anti-Ryan, it's more anti-"what he said".

It just wasn't cool.

Sam


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 6, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I hope he never stops doing it. It's a great service.
> 
> But I don't think there's an anti-WotC attitude around here. People have positively gushed over a lot of their recent releases, especially the environment books. (The worst thing said about Stormwrack that I can recall is "it's different than what I expected.") But when they do something less than great, like make wildly inaccurate and somewhat insulting statements, why should posters not respond to that as well?
> 
> And I don't recall anyone ever shooting the messenger (Merric) and if they did, they're ninnies.




*Loads a new suction cup tipped Nerf dart into his overly complicated gun/bow/thingy* 

Hey Merric, I got somethin' for ya... 

I would [/i]never[/i] use anything lethal on Merric. I would actually like to know his opinion of this little bit of hubris.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I truly hope Paizo has jumped on the coattails of something (WLD) big here.




Fixed it for you.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

What's wrong with Wizards people thinking they do work better then anyone else?  Heck, at my work I fgel I do a better job then my co workers.  It's a bit arrogant of me, but confidence in one's ability is not a bad thing.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 6, 2005)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> ACtually, I do see what he means - in comparison to everything else released, adventures make up a relatively small number of releases. Other than the DCC's and Necromancer releases, there are not many adventures showing up at the FLGS's I go to. And in any given month, there may not even be a DCC released. There are quite a few new rules supplements, settings, or new games showing up every month.




I suppose. 

But some of the adventures that are coming out are huge.  Mongoose did its box set, Paizo did the Shackled City, Mongoose is also going the 1-30 level Drow War adventure.  

On the small module front, within the last 13 months, there have been about 15 DCCs, and about half a dozen adventures from NG.


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What's wrong with Wizards people thinking they do work better then anyone else?  Heck, at my work I fgel I do a better job then my co workers.  It's a bit arrogant of me, but confidence in one's ability is not a bad thing.



Nothing at all wrong with believing you do quality work - and I don't think he's blowing smoke either. With the rare exception here and there, they publish a lot of fantastic sourcebooks. Usually it's after someone else lights the way though.

I dunno. It just sounds kind of sour and dismissive... especially when it comes from "the Man."


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What's wrong with Wizards people thinking they do work better then anyone else?



Well, apart from the fact that they might not _actually_ believe that (i.e., it's quite possibly spin/propaganda), and the (debatable) fact that it's just plain wrong at least some of the time, how about plain ol' daft arrogance?




			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> confidence in one's ability is not a bad thing.



Agreed, but that's a different beast altogether.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Oh dear.
> 
> How wrong can one person be?




Dunno.  I own only one non-WotC book, and I don't use it.

I'm quite certain there are third party products out there that put WotC to shame.  The vast majority are crap, though.  IMO, it's better to stick with what I know is likely to be middle-high quality and rely on my ability as a GM to make the difference than to sort through all the dross to get to the gold.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What's wrong with Wizards people thinking they do work better then anyone else?  Heck, at my work I fgel I do a better job then my co workers.  It's a bit arrogant of me, but confidence in one's ability is not a bad thing.




Yeah, but would your coworkers be pleased if you said "I do a better job than anyone else" out loud where they can hear you? 

Patrick Y.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Fixed it for you.




Actually in this one instance I feel that Paizo _does_ have a measurably superior product. I lost interest in WLD when they were explaining what classes not to allow, what abilities would not work (including Bardic Lore) and other artificial ways of limiting the characters. Yechhh!

The Auld Grump


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 6, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Yeah, but would your coworkers be pleased if you said "I do a better job than anyone else" out loud where they can hear you?




He's not doing that.  He's saying loudly to his coworkers - "we do a better job than those other guys" who don't work there, and hence are not co-workers.  You may work in the same industry - but you're not a co-worker to the WoTC guys.  Nor should they consider you as such.  And especially, nor should you.

EDIT: Looking back, it was Crothian that made the poor analogy, not you...  Point still applies, mostly.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Well, apart from the fact that they might not _actually_ believe that (i.e., it's quite possibly spin/propaganda), and the (debatable) fact that it's just plain wrong at least some of the time, how about plain ol' daft arrogance?




And what's wrong with arrogance?  I also think that there is no single product they have put out in the past year or so that is universally seen as inferior to something else on the same topic.  It would be very easy to argue they have the best books.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Yeah, but would your coworkers be pleased if you said "I do a better job than anyone else" out loud where they can hear you?
> 
> Patrick Y.




Of course not, but I can back it up as can Wizards.  This isn't Crothian's Little book company claiming they are the best in the business, This is the biggest RPG company claiming they are the best.  Right or wrong, they can back it up.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I'm quite certain there are third party products out there that put WotC to shame.



I have found this to be so, and I'm not the only one. Incidentally though, I do own and use some WotC books, as do many of the people who share this view.



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> The vast majority are crap, though.



I wonder how you reach that conclusion, given that you 







> own only one non-WotC book, and [...] don't use it.







			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> IMO, it's better to stick with what I know is likely to be middle-high quality and rely on my ability as a GM to make the difference than to sort through all the dross to get to the gold.



Fair enough. Each to their own.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> He's not doing that.  He's saying loudly to his coworkers - "we do a better job than those other guys" who don't work there, and hence are not co-workers.  You may work in the same industry - but you're not a co-worker to the WoTC guys.  Nor should they consider you as such.  And especially, nor should you.
> 
> EDIT: Looking back, it was Crothian that made the poor analogy, not you...  Point still applies, mostly.




Yep, my bad.  Not a perfect anology but I think the basics still works.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It would be very easy to argue they have the best books.



And just as easy to refute it.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> *Right or wrong*, they can 'back it up'.



 Fixed it for you. Not that it required much fixing.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> And just as easy to refute it.




Right, so nothing wrong with making the claim since they can back it up, people can refrute it, and we have discussion.  Just because a point can be argued doesn't make either side wrong.  Wizards can make thier claims, the other guys can make theirs.....


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> they can back it up



No, I don't think so.


No more than McDonalds can 'back up' saying that they make the 'best' breakfasts, or whatever it is they say.


And no, I'm not trying to say those companies are similar _at all_. But hopefully this illustrates the point well enough.


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Actually in this one instance I feel that Paizo _does_ have a measurably superior product. I lost interest in WLD when they were explaining what classes not to allow, what abilities would not work (including Bardic Lore) and other artificial ways of limiting the characters. Yechhh!
> 
> The Auld Grump



Totally agree from what I've seen of it, but it doesn't change the fact that AEG had to show it _could_ be done before anyone tried to do it better.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so.




Why can't they?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I lost interest in WLD when they were explaining what classes not to allow, what abilities would not work (including Bardic Lore) and other artificial ways of limiting the characters. Yechhh!
> 
> The Auld Grump




Actually, they did a fantastic job with that.  It is mostly just fluff so the DM can ignore it, but it does serve a very real purpose that goes along perfectly with the module.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 6, 2005)

Charles Ryan is the BOSS.

Saying to your underlings "you guys are the best" is one of the best things an employee can hear from his boss, especially if the employees know its true and their boss gives them the praise they deserve often.

This is how I interpreted Mr. Ryan's comments and wasn't offended by them at all.

Chuck


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

How _can_ they "back it up"?

It's just smack talk. No figures sheet is going to prove it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Why can't they?



Er, I might be unaware of (or misreading) some subtext or other here, but. . . why _can_ they? I for one would be greatly amused to see them try.


----------



## MacMathan (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think this topic has come up before. To recount the astute observation from last time (Chris was the source of one or more of these iirc):
> 
> 
> Those "not competing with WotC" by making adventures would be "competing with Dungeon." A hard act to follow, cost and presentation wise.
> ...




Very true on all accounts. 

Adventures are a limited market no mater how you break it down. If the average group is 1 DM and 4 players, that is limiting yourself to 20% of the market. Given how long something like Shackled City can last the average group I don't see there being a high frequency of sales either. That does not even get into how many DMs homebrew which lowers the number of potential buyers further.

As far as 3rd party WoTC cooperation I think a lot of that goodwill was burned with the release of 3.5. Also there seem to be hints on a few different boards that the new powers that be do not think too highly of the OGC concept.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> How _can_ they "back it up"?
> 
> It's just smack talk. No figures sheet is going to prove it.




Well, if you are just looking at it like smack talk then they don't have to.  But it still isn't hard to say Wizards does the best books.


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

MacMathan said:
			
		

> Given how long something like Shackled City can last the average group I don't see there being a high frequency of sales either. That




Shackled City, Ptolus, WLD, Drowmunchkin 30k, etc. are premium items. IMO most people that buy them will buy them just to be proud of owning them, never to actually use them at a game table. It will be interesting to see what other types of items come out to fill this "new" niche. Interesting and scary, if WotC jumps into it with both feet a la Games Workshop.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> it still isn't hard to say Wizards does the best books.



It isn't hard to say anything, even if it's impossible to back up.


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, if you are just looking at it like smack talk then they don't have to.  But it still isn't hard to say Wizards does the best books.




It's not hard to say they don't.


----------



## Graf (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Heh. If they were "doing it better than anyone else", one wonders why they felt the need to bring in a bunch of freelancers for their next generation of books.



Heh... love the WotC hate.
Most well run companies are going concerns. They hire and fire, contract and so forth individuals that make up the company, and use their resources to maximize their return.

People bitched and whined and howled about doing the setting search while simultaneously releasing some talented people. 
But they ignored all the complainers and Eberron's brilliant (financially as well as artistically).

You can hate them for being the biggest and best but I'm amused at the armchair quarterbacking. You really think that that "they're hiring people with proven skills to deal with a specific market need" is a witty retort?
[edit=added missing quote]


----------



## DaveStebbins (Oct 6, 2005)

When I bother to cruise the Wizards boards I often see "we need more adventures" threads started and posted to by people with no idea that third-party published D&D compatible adventures even exist (I make sure to educate them). And these are people tuned in enough to be on the WotC boards (no other judgements will be made about them in this post   ).

That a sizeable portion of gamers aren't aware of, or just won't ever use, third-party published accessories makes the d20 market very small to begin with. Suggesting that lots of third-party publishers should be continually seeding the even smaller d20 adventure module market, is... optimistic... at best.

I've said it before, I believe that Wizards greatly over-estimated how accepted third-party material would be under the OGL and d20 STL. The continuous clamor for adventures from WotC has caused them to re-evaluate how much they have to invest in low-profit adventures to prime the sales of the profit-making supplements they'd rather be selling.

-Dave


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> It isn't hard to say anything, even if it's impossible to back up.




Right, so back to the beginning; what's wrong with saying it?


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Oct 6, 2005)

Graf said:
			
		

> Heh... love the WotC hate.
> Most well run companies are going concerns. They hire and fire, contract and so forth individuals that make up the company, and use their resources to maximize their return.
> 
> People bitched and whined and howled about doing the setting search while simultaneously releasing some talented people.
> ...




It amuses me that you think Psion has WotC "hate".


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Right, so back to the beginning; what's wrong with saying it?



Right, so back to the beginning indeed.

"Well, apart from the fact that they might not _actually_ believe that (i.e., it's quite possibly spin/propaganda), and the (debatable) fact that it's just plain wrong at least some of the time, how about plain ol' daft arrogance?"

That's it, basically.


----------



## MacMathan (Oct 6, 2005)

Despite thousands of posts trying to do it all the time there are very few objective means of measuring the "quality" of a product as people look for different things. Other than sales, which is probably not the best way to judge quality, there are no hard numbers to look at. That is why reading multiple reviews and leafing thrugh a product are important. 

Overall it is one statement. You will rarely hear someone come out and say "Our company is thrid best." Too much is being made of a single sentence read online. 

The point of the whole thing is we will be getting even more material for our campaigns from WoTC and I think that is good news. Thanks for the heads up Merric!

Oh and as a sidenote wasn't there a thread around here the other day about new EN readers being turned off by all of the negativity?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> It amuses me that you think Psion has WotC "hate".



I don't either, btw. 


All I've been doing is trying to get across the quite straightforward reasons why I believe one part of the original quote is both incorrect and inappropriate.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 6, 2005)

MacMathan said:
			
		

> Overall it is one statement. You will rarely hear someone come out and say "Our company is thrid best." Too much is being made of a single sentence read online.
> 
> The point of the whole thing is we will be getting even more material for our campaigns from WoTC and I think that is good news. Thanks for the heads up Merric!




Well said!  I had been trying to think of a way to phrase what I had in my head about this.  I think this does it.


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Right, so back to the beginning; what's wrong with saying it?




I think it displays a tremendous lack of respect for their industry peers, and looking at the bylines on upcoming books with names that have also appeared on books by the likes of Green Ronin, Sword & Sorcery, Mongoose, and FFG, their coworkers.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think it displays a tremendous lack of respect for their industry peers, and looking at the bylines on upcoming books with names that have also appeared on books by the likes of Green Ronin and Sword & Sorcery, coworkers.




I think the gaming industry could do with more focus on being the best and less focus on being one big happy family.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think it displays a tremendous lack of respect for their industry peers, and looking at the bylines on upcoming books with names that have also appeared on books by the likes of Green Ronin and Sword & Sorcery, coworkers.




It's a business.  Statements proclaiming one the best at what they do happen all the time and does not necessarily imply disrespect.  One can claim themselves the best and still respect their competition.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think the gaming industry could do with more focus on being the best and less focus on being one big happy family.




Ya, I'm not sure I really expect or am all that concerned that everyone like and respect each other.


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> It's a business.  Statements proclaiming one the best at what they do happen all the time and does not necessarily imply disrespect.  One can claim themselves the best and still respect their competition.




This is true, and something I thought about earlier. I guess I view the game industry as somewhat cozier than bigger industries and don't like being disillusioned of this. After all, have any of you shared dinner with your favorite novelist, or had Roger Ebert recognize you and call your name out from across the room?

Still, it does seem a tad unprofessional to me. Despite the fact its not that unusual for business at large, in the gaming industry, it almost seems a hallmark of unprofessionalism to me, something I typically have experienced excusively from self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing small publishers. One such publisher blasted me for rating his company worse than his competitor (when in fact, if you did the math, I didn't) EVEN THOUGH they were tapping into the same freelancers for much of their work!


----------



## WingOver (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Charles:* I will say this: we think this hole in the marketplace is a long-term phenomenon, so we're looking at long-term solutions!




I'm looking forward to some new adventures from WOTC... especially if they're related in some capacity to the design contest their running.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 6, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> I've said it before, I believe that Wizards greatly over-estimated how accepted third-party material would be under the OGL and d20 STL. The continuous clamor for adventures from WotC has caused them to re-evaluate how much they have to invest in low-profit adventures to prime the sales of the profit-making supplements they'd rather be selling.
> 
> -Dave




 I wonder -- did KoK do better than, say, Scarred Lands or IK?  In other words, does putting the D&D brand logo on a product -- even if it is produced by a third party -- make it a much more salable item?  And, if so, is there a way that the next generation od licensing might incorporate so both WotC and the third parties could get what they wanted?

Imagine if they god rid of the d20 STL entirely -- which they can do -- and replaced it with a "Powered by D&D" STL.  It would be a little more stringent, maybe, and a little more tightly controlled -- as far as checking for compliance goes -- but would it be worth it to the d20 publisher?  Frex, the PbD&D license might allow you to create adventures, setting sourcebooks, and other 'play oriented' materials -- making use of much more than what's out there in the SRD -- but it wouldn't actually be an OGL product and it might have a cap on how much new stuff, or what kinds of new stuff, you could create.  PrCs and feats and spells might be okay -- campaign settings need that sort of thing -- but rules systems outside of those in official D&D books would be prohibited.  It would certainly be more work on both WotC's and third parties' behalfs (behalves?), but increased sales of the product, and in turn increased sales of not just the PHB but other WotC books, might make it worth it.

I mean, imagine if GR was able to put out a big, fat seafaring advnture and not only call in Powered by Dungeons and Dragons, but also say 'uses rules from Stormwrack' on the cover.  Would that sell better than a GR product with the d20 logo and a blurb on the back saying 'new seafaring rules'?  Would it serve WotC's interest more?  GR's?

Just thinking.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> After all, have any of you shared dinner with your favorite novelist, or had Roger Ebert recognize you and call your name out from across the room?




I'm sure this has happened to someone.  But studios and publishers still compete to be the best at books and movies.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Still, it does seem a tad unprofessional to me. Despite the fact its not that unusual for business at large, in the gaming industry, it almost seems a hallmark of unprofessionalism to me, something I typically have experienced excusively from self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing small publishers. One such publisher blasted me for rating his company worse than his competitor (when in fact, if you did the math, I didn't) EVEN THOUGH they were tapping into the same freelancers for much of their work!




I guess I don't see it as unprofessional.  I can see how it could disrupt the illusion of a cozy gaming industry, but I think WotC looks at it more from a business standpoint than a strive to be friendly to competitors.

When the company I work for goes to trade shows where there competitors are all about them you can bet we proclaim we are the best at what we do.  Again, its not that we don't respect our competitors or are trying to treat them in an unprofessional manner - we simply state what we believe.  You can bet there are in their booth doing the same.

Now criticizing you directly for rating a company lower than another is on the unprofessional side.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  On some things we may agree and on others we may not and even publishers should respect that.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think it displays a tremendous lack of respect for their industry peers, and looking at the bylines on upcoming books with names that have also appeared on books by the likes of Green Ronin, Sword & Sorcery, Mongoose, and FFG, their coworkers.



Well-said, *Psion*.

It's insulting to others in the trade who do award-winning work respected by the consumers and their business peers.







			
				IronWolf said:
			
		

> It's a business.  Statements proclaiming one the best at what they do happen all the time and does not necessarily imply disrespect.  One can claim themselves the best and still respect their competition.



Confidence and arrogance are not the same thing. Belief in oneself and disregard for others are not the same thing.

There is a story - which like most good stories may or may not be true - about a football coach who pulls aside one of his players after the player performed an extended display in the end zone on scoring a touchdown. The coach looks the player in the eye and says, "Now next time, act like you've been there before."


----------



## Hammerhead (Oct 6, 2005)

To be honest, I'd hate to work at a company that doesn't believe it's the best at what it does. Especially if that company dominated the market like WotC does. Furthermore, remember that Wizards competes with FFG, Mongoose, Necromancer, etc.

However, I do think it sad when some people restrict their attentions to only products made by WotC and ignore so many wonderful gaming books out there that surpass the 'official' material.


----------



## wakedown (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Shackled City, Ptolus, WLD, Drowmunchkin 30k, etc. are premium items. IMO most people that buy them will buy them just to be proud of owning them, never to actually use them at a game table. It will be interesting to see what other types of items come out to fill this "new" niche. Interesting and scary, if WotC jumps into it with both feet a la Games Workshop.




I have seen countless instances of folks in the 30's crowd "coming back" to the game.  Most of us have a pretty full work week and are heavily nostalgic when it comes to gaming.  Money is really not a factor in purchasing back some of your youth.

If you look at the 'classic campaign arcs' on eBay (i.e. TOEE, Slavers, Spiders) - last night's auctions went for $55-$80 a pop.  WLD is a little dry, but Shackled City is great..  Heck, I subscribed to Dungeon purely on the basis of Age of Worms.  There's definately some good non-WOTC product out there (Vault of Larin Karr comes to mind) in this niche.

For my demographic at least, I know I have money in hand waiting for 2-3 "gems" of campaign arcs that may pop up in the next 2 years.  I'm definately looking for a "classic" and I'd expect extremely high production values (full color glossy, player hand-outs) as well as great plot development and an immersive detailed setting.

I'm pretty excited that companies like Paizo and WOTC are in touch and developing product here.  I hope a lot of the upstart companies don't try to be first to market and compromise on quality while jumping in here.  I'm sure we'll see some noise, but the classics will take 6-12 months of development and play-testing.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 6, 2005)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> However, I do think it sad when some people restrict their attentions to only products made by WotC and ignore so many wonderful gaming books out there that surpass the 'official' material.




At the same time, you really can't blame someone who threw a bunch of money at third party products, thought 95% of the sucked, and decided that WotC was "the best".


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 6, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Confidence and arrogance are not the same thing. Belief in oneself and disregard for others are not the same thing.




The statements in the initial post were made on _WotC_ boards.  It was not Mr. Ryan going over to other company's message boards and posting such things there.  He is certainly entitled to say what he believes on his company's boards without necessarily being considered arrogant to the point of disrespecting another company or companies.

Again making such statements that you believe you make the best product in the business does not in and of itself mean they do not respect other gaming publishers.


----------



## Sholari (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else). As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)




I think for the great majority of D20 publishers Charles Ryan is absolutely right.  WOTC has an incentive to build the system, whereas the great majority of publishers only need to profit off of it regardless of whether you negatively affect things like game balance, DM burnout, etc.  All the publishers that continue to pump out splat books line their pockets so that players can find a way to break the system and it creates a real burden for DMs.  However, there are definitely some notable exceptions such as Paizo, Privateer Press, etc. that have definitely added something to the long term benefit industry and not just profited off of it.   It is kind of like online affiliate marketing.  Affiliate marketers can be great at building web traffic and leads but unmanaged they can really cause some short term problems at the expense of the long term.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I wonder how you reach that conclusion, given that you




Quite simple:  I still read through things in Barnes & Noble (my local store has a surprisingly good d20 section) and LGS.

Malhavoc turns out some really good stuff.  Unfortunately, the flavor of the AU stuff doesn't float my boat.  I really need to take a look at the variant psionics, though.

Mongoose has been universally underwhelming.  To a real extent, they've tainted other third parties by association.  Somehow, they got to be a major player, while having the only claim to fame of never quite completely sucking without actually adding anything of value.  There always seems to be more Mongoose product than anyone else's, so I've looked over a fair amount of it.

Green Ronin is one that I've seen very little of.  They really do sound like someone I'd like to see more from.

Ditto on Privateer Press.

The one book I own is, IIRC, either AEG or FFG.  Looked nice in the store, got it home and found it devoid of any real meat.  Most of the rest of the products from those companies look about the same.

Some of the companies made a bad first impression on me when 3E first came out (WWGS' Sword & Sorcery imprint).  There were some really bad design decisions that showed no eye toward actually paying attension to good design.

Others just don't interest me.  I don't remember who is doing the new drow campaign hard-bounds, but I am so sick of drow that I don't even want to look at it.  It was bad in the early ninties, and it's only gotten worse in the intervening 15 years.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> To be honest, I'd hate to work at a company that doesn't believe it's the best at what it does. Especially if that company dominated the market like WotC does. Furthermore, remember that Wizards competes with FFG, Mongoose, Necromancer, etc.



They have to compete?  Uh, no.

But companies believing they're the best? Hrumph. The people who work for companies know that's likely to be the official line, sure. But really? Most people feel that what's best (according to their subjective view) is best, no matter the hype. If that happily coincides with 'their' company, or even other companies that they have some kind of stake in, then that's kinda neat. Otherwise, who cares anyway? People can (and do) work very well, knowing that their workplace produces even _substandard_ stuff, let alone average or 'just good'.




			
				Hammerhead said:
			
		

> I do think it sad when some people restrict their attentions to only products made by WotC and ignore so many wonderful gaming books out there that surpass the 'official' material.



Likewise.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 6, 2005)

WotC (or at least Charles Ryan) has dropped a few points in my books with this statement. Frankly, I have had little use for most WotC supplements. 

There are some exceptions - I very much liked Unearthed Arcana, and have found Heroes of Battle useful, but the race books do not decorate my shelves at all. Almost any time that there is a direct comparison between a WotC book and *the best* of the non-WotC books then WotC loses. WotC has a high average, but they seldom go much above that average. Stormwrack vs. Book of the Sea (I take BotS with me and leave SW at home), Frost & Fur vs. Frostburn, the Quintessential series by Mongoose vs. the Complete series by WotC, Monsternomicon vs. Monster Manuals 2-3... all of these are no comparison to my jaundiced eyes.

The Auld Grump - on a scale of 1-10 I give WotC a fairly consistent 7.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Oct 6, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I get the sense that these were not the replies that MerricB was expecting.




Very true, if you want WotC praise you definately don't come to ENWorld.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Quite simple:  I still read through things in Barnes & Noble (my local store has a surprisingly good d20 section) and LGS.



Well hey, glad to hear it wasn't an unfounded claim.




			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose has been universally underwhelming.



I used to think that, prior to picking up Conan and a couple of other things. But fair enough, too.




			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Green Ronin is one that I've seen very little of.  They really do sound like someone I'd like to see more from.



Judging from the reviews their books consistently get (from a wide variety of roleplayers), I'd personally suggest it might be worth your while to have a look. Well, that and the fact I use several of their books a lot (particularly the Book of Fiends and Advanced Bestiary lately).




			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Some of the companies made a bad first impression on me when 3E first came out (WWGS' Sword & Sorcery imprint).  There were some really bad design decisions that showed no eye toward actually paying attension to good design.



Yep. I've never been a big fan of S&SS either.




			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Others just don't interest me.  I don't remember who is doing the new drow campaign hard-bounds, but I am so sick of drow that I don't even want to look at it.  It was bad in the early ninties, and it's only gotten worse in the intervening 15 years.



Heh, yeah. I think it's Mongoose btw, but I'm not sure.






			
				MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> if you want WotC praise, definitely come to ENWorld



Fixed this for you. 


I've praised several of their books myself even. Who'da thought?


----------



## Mercule (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I used to think that, prior to picking up Conan and a couple of other things. But fair enough, too.




I haven't seen Conan, but it does sound like something I'd be interested in -- at least to pillage some ideas.

I also expect Iron Heroes to find its way into my hands, as a third-party book that looks killer.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I haven't seen Conan, but it does sound like something I'd be interested in -- at least to pillage some ideas.
> 
> I also expect Iron Heroes to find its way into my hands, as a third-party book that looks killer.




I've always found Mongoose hit and miss, but lots of the companies are.  THe thing is no single company can be completely judged by seeing a few books.  It is the writers that a lot of the time really show if the book is going to be good or not.


----------



## Pants (Oct 6, 2005)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Some of the companies made a bad first impression on me when 3E first came out (WWGS' Sword & Sorcery imprint).  There were some really bad design decisions that showed no eye toward actually paying attension to good design.



That's what happened with me.
During the early d20 craze I bought some baaaad 3rd party books, I got burned and I swore them off for a long time.  I'm slowly coming around, but I'm probably too critical at times.



> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else).



I literally winced when I read this.
Although it may be Charles' opinion, being the Brand Manager, his opinions should be more... tactful. Especially since his opinions could reflect badly upon the company.

I think it was in kind of poor form to say that. It really didn't add anything to the statement other than fuel for the fires that always seem to be burning under WotC's rump.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Fixed this for you.
> 
> 
> I've praised several of their books myself even. Who'da thought?



I don't think that's true at all.

ENWorld is very diverse. True, WotC gets a lot of focus here, but most of the time, that is balanced out by people being critical of their books (no bad thing mind you, everyone needs to be critical). In fact, I've never seen a thread here that has had only unilateral praise for WotC. I've seen far more complaining about something they're doing or have done (*cough*3.5*cough*).


----------



## Mercule (Oct 6, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> That's what happened with me.
> During the early d20 craze I bought some baaaad 3rd party books, I got burned and I swore them off for a long time.  I'm slowly coming around, but I'm probably too critical at times.




Which is probably the case with me, too.  I'm probably in a frame of mind, now, where I could be more fair.  Unfortunately, I'm also at a point where I'm really feeling the glut of books that I have and not buying much.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 6, 2005)

Amazing. Charles Ryan didn't really say anything all that bad at all, and people go crazy about it. He has every right to say that the products from the company he works for are the best. Why is it that HE can say that but I've seen multiple occurances of OTHER  publishers saying the same thing on their sites and no one goes crazy? Heck, some publishers even do that here on ENWorld and people just go on as if nothing happened.

...and the funny thing is, his statement is CORRECT. Note that he says 'largely empty' when talking about adventures. Yes, there are companies that make them(and good ones at that), buts its obviously NOT what WotC had expected when they left that part of the market alone.

So now they're stepping in to fill the gap they see.

Sometimes it seems like it'd be best if WotC people would just never say a single thing to us at all. But no, then they'd get blasted for being secretive...because they'd obviously be plotting 4e. Guess they just can't win.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 6, 2005)

Wow. What a ruccus I've stirred up!

I'm sorry to have given the impression of disrespecting any particular d20 publisher. Let me make clear that my comments were quite generalized (please note that I said "most" companies this and "many" companies that). Obviously there are companies that still make adventures, and obviously some companies that have abandoned them make other products that are quite good and serve a valuable niche in the portfolio of game products available to the d20 gamer. Where those things are true, my comments obviously don't apply.

But here's the thing (and this also speaks to my comment about WotC making the best hardcover supplements): We have a distinct and unsurmountable competitive advantage in the category of core supplements. We have the highest production values, and the economy of scale to carry them out in every single product. We have core designers who know the game better than anyone--and not just the game as you see it on the shelves now, but also as it's evolving in products that won't be out for another six months or a year. We have the most powerful brand in gaming--perhaps in fantasy overall. And we have the largest, most experienced collection of game-design minds assembled on this planet. The tastes of any individual on these boards notwithstanding, for these reasons we will alway dominate the market for hardcover core d20 supplements. [Oh yeah, and we're just darn good. Of course I believe that--if I didn't, I'd go work for someone else!] Anyone who wants to scoot up to this buffet, as someone analogized, is going to have to do something truly unique, or they'll find themselves clawing over our scraps.

Compare that to a typical adventure: A creative, talented author with a good idea, a solid grasp of D&D, and a few thousand bucks can put out a really good adventure--perhaps as good or better than anything we can do. Aside from our brand, all of our competitive advantage is neutralized in this category.

My hat is off to those companies that have made unique product lines and found a place for themselves. But for every one of them, there are twenty that didn't. (Remember, from where I sit, I see the entire d20 spectrum--not just the companies that do well enough to develop a vocal following on EN World.) Those twenty have choked the RPG supply chain with product that doesn't move because it doesn't address a need or do anything better than what we do.

The key to a healthy gaming marketplace is a diversified portfolio--a range of products offered to the consumer that cover all of his or her needs, with just enough duplication to ensure healthy competition. The d20 community, as a whole, hasn't delivered. (And again, this isn't a slam on any company that is delivering!) That results in A) a hole that WotC is now going to fill, and B) a d20 industry that's really struggling. Which is what I said in my original reply to Merric.

Sorry to have given offense; hopefully that clears things up a bit!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

I predict:

Merric will be here in 4 hours to see how this thread is going.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 6, 2005)

In my initial post, I was merely concerned that Mr. Ryan's statement makes it look like WotC views 3rd party publishers as competitors now, not allies. This makes me concerned that perhaps WotC, if it releases 4th edition, might not make it open content, and I feel this would be bad for the game. It wouldn't necessarily be bad for the industry, because we've seen a clear birth of new companies in the past 5 years, and I'm pretty sure those who are still around could survive on their own devices.

However, to address the argument from a page ago. It's one thing to be proud of your talents ("We put out the best products!"). That's fine. That's good spirit. 

It is bad, however, to combine a statement of pride with one of criticism ("Other publishers didn't write adventures like we thought they would, and look, they're doing poorly."), because it causes your honest pride to look like arrogance. Smugness. Perhaps even disdain for your fellow publishers.

I mean, I think E.N. Publishing, and I in particular, put out some very good books. But unless another publisher actively asked for critique, I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with their product. I learned my lesson about that back in '02 when I pissed off Mongoose.


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 6, 2005)

Wow, what an arrogant post by that guy. Makes me really glad I don't usually buy WOTC books. Which I do mostly because of lack of quality.  But now I won't buy them because of him. 


Sure, they beat other companies in looks most of the time. But in content, usually they are worse. The 3.0 splatbooks for the various classes were as bad as any d20 product put out, save perhaps the stuff by FFE and the Foundation.  And if the original Star Wars was so great, why did they have to put out a revised version so quickly?

The quality of the rest of the supplements is largely debatable. I don't like them, but others do... and don't even get me started about their d20 Modern stuff.  

The reason you don't see so many adventures, is the companies that put out adventures only largely folded.  Only Goodman Games and Necromancer have survived. And even Necromancer shifted to bigger adventures. Presumably because the profit margin on each one is better. Most of their smaller adventures now come in very limited runs. 

ANd not only is the profit margin small on adventures, they have competition from WOTC, or rather, D&D.  Technically it's Paizo, but since they have the D&D license, it's effectively WOTC.  How can you compete with a product that delivers what, 3-4 adventures for $8 or so? You can't, if you are a small company, unless you do what Goodman did and mimic the old classic modules (and do a good job of it).  Necromancer has the backing of White Wolf


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 6, 2005)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> hopefully that clears things up a bit!




If it does, I'd be amazed. 

Good post, though.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 6, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> And if the original Star Wars was so great, why did they have to put out a revised version so quickly?




Because Lucas Licensing required them to as part of the promotion for Episode II.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 6, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> In my initial post, I was merely concerned that Mr. Ryan's statement makes it look like WotC views 3rd party publishers as competitors now, not allies.




I am absolutely not speaking for CR, nor am I reading this into what he said:

It is really not the fault of WotC that there may have been a change from ally to adversary.  WotC were pretty up-front about seeing other publishers filling gaps that WotC didn't or couldn't fill.  They had that attitude from before the SRD was released.  I remember adventures being called out, specifically.

Instead, other parties have decided to take on WotC where they've already staked their claim.  Class books and race books are a major one, in my mind.  Please don't tell me that anyone could not have seen those as a likely candidate for WotC to publish.

On the other hand, campaign settings -- especially niche settings like Midnight and Conan -- are something with potential.  Likewise, monster and spell books are something that the market can probably bear a good load of.  Environment books, like "Frost and Fur" were a great idea, unfortunately, no one ran with it earlier.  

And the biggest category that seems to do well is alternate rulesets.  Arcana Unearthed/Evolved is hugely popular, as is World of Warcraft.  Everquest RPG had a nice run, too.  Plus Spycraft, Mutants and Masterminds, and a few others.


----------



## jokamachi (Oct 6, 2005)

This is a load of hogwash. The adventure market has NOT been empty for the past couple years. It has been churning out better and better stuff. Look at Goodman games. Look at Necromancer. Hello, wotc?? Pull your heads out.

This is wizards way of saying the market isn't ready for 4e and they need to run out the clock with something other than endless sourcebooks which, by the way, aren't selling as well as they used to.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2005)

I appreciate that Mr. Ryan took the time to weigh in.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 6, 2005)

That's an odd statement for Charles to make....that WotC makes supplements better than anyone else?  Ahem.....Black Company Campaign Setting, Blue Rose, Rokugan (the AEG book, not Swashbuckling Adventures), Book of Eldritch Might, etc. etc.

There are plenty of other companies making products as good or better than WotC...

Banshee


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> We have a distinct and unsurmountable competitive advantage in the category of core supplements.



Naturally.




			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> We have the highest production values



Whether that's honest opinion or just spin, it certainly ain't universal truth, and that's that.




			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> the economy of scale to carry them out in every single product.



Apparently.




			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> We have core designers who know the game better than anyone--and not just the game as you see it on the shelves now, but also as it's evolving in products that won't be out for another six months or a year.



That is untrue, and someone needs to call you on this one. Might as well be me, today. Your 'core designers' frequently klutz things up royally, just as much as most other d20 companies, and more than some. And as for the game as it will be evolving etc.? _That isn't just up to WotC_, and hasn't been for quite a while now. Many 'third-party' products have reshaped the game as much as - or more than - Wizards' books.




			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> We have the most powerful brand in gaming--perhaps in fantasy overall.



Again, naturally.




			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> we have the largest, most experienced collection of game-design minds assembled on this planet.



Again, not really. It's partly just who _happens to work there_. After all, several of WotC's brightest ended up elsewhere, and doing very well at those places, no?




			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, and we're just darn good. Of course I believe that--if I didn't, I'd go work for someone else!



Fair enough, if (as you claim) that is one of your motivations for working there. Even if so, that might not be the case for every single employee. Realistically, the chances are, I'd say.




			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> hopefully that clears things up a bit!



I think it has made certain of your views more apparent, yes.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What's wrong with Wizards people thinking they do work better then anyone else?  Heck, at my work I fgel I do a better job then my co workers.  It's a bit arrogant of me, but confidence in one's ability is not a bad thing.




Insulting one's competitors is.  Anybody in sales knows this 

Great way to drive the customer to the other guy.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 6, 2005)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I am absolutely not speaking for CR, nor am I reading this into what he said:
> 
> It is really not the fault of WotC that there may have been a change from ally to adversary.  WotC were pretty up-front about seeing other publishers filling gaps that WotC didn't or couldn't fill.  They had that attitude from before the SRD was released.  I remember adventures being called out, specifically.
> 
> ...




Why wouldn't companies take WotC on with some of the generic books?  WotC doesn't have a monopoly on creative thought, or knowledge of the game.  Many of the writers for various D20 companies have at various times been WotC employees.  WotC appears less willing to take chances than the smaller publishers....personally, that's one reason *why* I like Green Ronin, Malhavoc, Fantasy Flight Games, Privateer Press products.  They often take the game in directions that WotC is way too reluctant to go.  They get out of the "safe zone".  And, many of the products I've seen have far less of the "cheese" factor that WotC includes in most products nowadays.

Not that WotC products are all bad.  They're not.  The Environment series was very cool.  Eberron is showing some potential.  Magic of Incarnum is new.  But many other products by D20 companies have been just as good and in some cases better.

Banshee


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> But here's the thing (and this also speaks to my comment about WotC making the best hardcover supplements): We have a distinct and unsurmountable competitive advantage in the category of core supplements. We have the highest production values, and the economy of scale to carry them out in every single product. We have core designers who know the game better than anyone--and not just the game as you see it on the shelves now, but also as it's evolving in products that won't be out for another six months or a year. We have the most powerful brand in gaming--perhaps in fantasy overall. And we have the largest, most experienced collection of game-design minds assembled on this planet. The tastes of any individual on these boards notwithstanding, for these reasons we will alway dominate the market for hardcover core d20 supplements.




Thanks for stopping by, Charles.

If you are talking about production values and sales, yeah, few can even compete.

My definition of what makes a product the "best" is rather different, however. Production values are nice, but content, creativity, and utility are king. And I certainly feel that other prublishers put out products that have more than competed in this area, and likewise, WotC has put out some disappointments in this area. Production values are, to me, a secondary consideration. And sales matter not at all. If a good book is in my possession, it does not matter how many other people bought it.

I am intrigued by new titles coming down the pipe, however, and am pleased to see WotC dipping into some of the talent that the third parties have produced. I think that the great "big name diaspora" of WotC hurt their product line more than they admit, and like to think pulling in more authors represents a sort of return to greatness.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 6, 2005)

Part of the problem is one of measurement and definition. How do you define "better" or "best"?

If it's "most fun to read" or "most useful in a game," well, there's no reliable metric. It's going to vary based on people's opinions, their style of play... Heck, the mood they're in at the time.

The only _measurable_ metrics of "quality," when comparing Book X to Book Y (assuming they're on roughly the same topic) are:

1) Reliability of rules/math.
2) Production values.
3) Sales.

Yes, those are poor indicators of quality. I'm not arguing otherwise. But they're the only _measurable_ ones.

And certainly by those three factors, WotC does, indeed, maintain a clear lead, or at least break even, with the other best companies in the biz. They've had some misfires, sure, and other companies have had some home runs. But taken as an aggregate, WotC's on top here.


----------



## Sholari (Oct 6, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Wow, what an arrogant post by that guy. Makes me really glad I don't usually buy WOTC books. Which I do mostly because of lack of quality.  But now I won't buy them because of him.





It might come off as arrogant but he is absolutely right.  The proliferation of stuff has fragmented the industry leading to a lack of any sort of standardization.  For retailers this creates a broader spectrum of slower moving product driving up inventory cost and creating a very confusing situation for new gamers.  The result is that more retailers start to go out of business and fewer new gamers come into the hobby.  For the player base it makes it much more difficult to get any sort of agreement among variants serving as a deterrent to group formation.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 6, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't companies take WotC on with some of the generic books?




I didn't say they shouldn't.  What I said was that WotC had cast certain product categories to the winds, and had laid a stake in certain others.

If you're going to wrestle the 800# gorilla, you might want to at least consider the strategy.  If you're going to do it head-on, make sure you've got enough leverage to offset it's bulk.  There are a lot of companies that didn't really think things through, IMO.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 6, 2005)

MacMathan said:
			
		

> Adventures are a limited market no mater how you break it down. If the average group is 1 DM and 4 players, that is limiting yourself to 20% of the market. Given how long something like Shackled City can last the average group I don't see there being a high frequency of sales either. That does not even get into how many DMs homebrew which lowers the number of potential buyers further..




Except the DM buys more books than all the other players combined, on average. I know I certainly do! On top of that, if there's a compelling campaign product, it's not unheard of for the entire group to buy the product together (by pooling their money), and then having the DM run it!


----------



## wakedown (Oct 6, 2005)

This thread's pretty entertaining... it validates that folks are almost never happy!

Lots of people look for a reason not to like something - whether it's your job and you think to yourself how much better it would be to start your own company and not have to be forced to compromise quality for a deadline.  But then you start your own company, and you're addressing an unmet market need and thinking to yourself how good things are.  But the market need was a time-based opportunity which believe it or not, the market leader was moving on, but wasn't as agile as your nimble company.  Now you're thinking to yourself, this is unfair - I was here first!   But the folks at the big company may have been started it sooner - they were in the market first, and probably saw many of the same signs that food was being left on the table.  

Is anyone evil or bad?  Not really, they are usually just moving as fast as they can to try to give their customers what they want to the best of their ability to execute.  Both the big company and the small company.  We all root for the little guys of course - this is one of the many reasons I'm using Firefox (which I mention low on my list lower than all the more feature-oriented reasons).

I would bet anyone here that the smart folks at WOTC (not saying WOTC as a whole is smart, but the more astute business folks at the company) are thinking more about how to make the whole pie bigger over how do I gobble up a bigger percentage of the pie.  Technically, the whole P&P (pen & paper) pie needs to get bigger and from what I can tell this industry is as natural as any other.

I'll buy any product that resonates with my need, whether it's the market leader making it or a nimble start-up that got something hot off the press to me just in time for when I needed it most.  The fact that folks from these companies are reading our forums is GREAT... we're probably all going to get what we want from someone.  

I can just see the office banter now - "I'm telling you Bob, I have over a hundred data points that prove our customers will pay $50-60 for an epic hardcover campaign setting that can be adapted to any of the worlds"; "I guarantee you Janet, I have many signs if we produce a leather-bound PHB we can sell it to 20% of the folks who bought the standard version.";  "No Jim, we cannot do release anything else on drow, my samples show 7/10 customers are drow-saturated and will not make another drow-related purchase for 12 months"


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 6, 2005)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Compare that to a typical adventure: A creative, talented author with a good idea, a solid grasp of D&D, and a few thousand bucks can put out a really good adventure--perhaps as good or better than anything we can do. Aside from our brand, all of our competitive advantage is neutralized in this category.




Charles, I don't think that's true. For an adventure to work well, you need a really solid grasp of the rules --- better than the typical 3rd party game designer. (Note that most of those can't explain the difference between CR and EL and why the difference is important) Here's an example: templated monsters and monsters with classes tend to only come up in adventures written by WOTC or former WOTC employees --- I don't see a lot of those in adventures written by non-designers, even non-designers who submit to Dungeon, who have the benefit of editorial oversight from the editors of that magazine. I suspect many 3rd party authors have no clue what those do.

Contrast that with designing prestige classes, feats, or spells. Anyone can do it, especially if they have no concern with play-testing or the final quality of the result. Unless the reader is particularly familiar with D&D, it's not obvious immediately if something is broken, overpowered, or underpowered. An adventure with broken pieces, by contrast, is immediately obvious.

So, if you were a mediocre designer looking to publish something, which would you pick? Not the adventure --- your failures there will be immediately obvious. Better to publish a splat book.

Looking at my shelf, I realize that the only splat books I have (and are using) are the WoTC books. I got burned by a few earlier products (not the ones published by Malhavoc press), and decided that I'd rather have something safe.


----------



## Yair (Oct 6, 2005)

[hijack]


			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Insulting one's competitors is.  Anybody in sales knows this
> 
> Great way to drive the customer to the other guy.



Really? I've got no knowledge in this area, is this common knowledge in the sales buisness?
[/hijack]

On topic, I'm glad WotC is making more adventures, the way I see it the more adventures are being made the greater the chances one will fit me snugly. And frankly, both Goodman Games and Necromancer Games are focused on dungeoncrawls/classic-feel, which is not my first choice in general.

As for being the best... Ryan is entitled to his opinion and that shouldn't insult anyone. Though I admit smirking when I came upon his little bit of hubris. My "to buy" list didn't include a WotC product in a long time.
The only thing that suprised me was that he implied lack of adventures is linked to a lack of success; that's bad buisness-sense, and I believe he knows much better than that. I suspect he meant more that attempting to compete with WotC in its own shtick is bad buisness, not that making adventures is good buisness.

Oh, and thanks for weighing in Ryan!


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The only _measurable_ metrics of "quality," when comparing Book X to Book Y (assuming they're on roughly the same topic) are:
> 
> 1) Reliability of rules/math.
> 2) Production values.
> ...



I agree, but the fact that other aspects of quality are, well, qualitative rather than quantitative doesn't automatically exclude them as a useful tool.

For example, comb through reviews of WotC products and note that proofreading errors, from text to stat blocks, are a frequent complaint among reviewers, a trend that suggests editing as a "production value" is lacking in many WotC books.

Another aspect of quality that can be discerned from reviews are problem rules - the myriad mistakes in d20 _Past_ come to mind, including adopting a subsystem from _D&D_ without regard for compatibility with d20 _Modern_. These are mistakes that reviewers and general gamers catch, and talk about, enough so that they contribute to an overall sense of the quality of the product.

Neither of these aspects of quality are as readily gathered and analyzed as numerical data likes sales figures, but they are as much a part of production values as the number of books with full-color glossy pages and speak directly to reliability, though not always to the gaming math.


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 6, 2005)

For what it's worth, I think Mr Ryan's comments make a lot of sense.

However, the lack of politeness displayed by a very few posters in this thread is unpleasant.  I don't care if you're outraged, on your behalf or someone else's - please keep it civil.  That's why I like ENWorld.

-blarg


----------



## Maggan (Oct 6, 2005)

Why the indignation? There are competitors ripping into WotC from time to time, claiming they don't know what they are doing, that D&D sucks, and what have you. But I don't see any outbursts of indignation then, no sentiments  that "competitors should not criticise each other". WotC is fair game, it seems.

And his post was a post on their own messageboard. On D&D's own messageboard, folks. What do you expect him to say, on the official D&D messageboards? Are you expecting him to say: "Our stuff is quite ok, but there are others that make better stuff, go check them out, here are the links to their web sites. And btw, of our last books, [insert title of pet disaster from WotC here] totally sucked, big time"?

What are other publishers saying about their own books, on their own discussion boards?

Are you expecting him to say: "The 3rd party publishers are ALL doing fine, especially your favourite one"? There are several who claim otherwise, Chris Pramas and Eyebeems, to just cite two of them. Many of them are struggling. Like Charles Ryan said. Like others have said. [Insert favourite 3rd party publisher here] might not, but many do.

And fans have complained endlessly about the dearth of adventures, but when Charles Ryan says the same thing, people are outraged.

I think it's going to be interesting to see if WotC focus on short adventures, or huge adventures, or free print adventures bundled with the hardbacks, or strategic alliances with 3rd party publishers, or licenses maybe.

Who knows, maybe Goodman Games could supply WotC with adventures, thereby reaching a much larger audience?

/M


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And what's wrong with arrogance?



It dulls your skills and you turn out crap product.

What keeps me sharp every day is knowing I have a worthy competitor the next town over (I'm a reporter) and I have to get up early every day and run circles around her.

If I woke up and decided I was The Man, very soon, I wouldn't be.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2005)

Graf said:
			
		

> Heh... love the WotC hate.



I love the facile dismissal of relevant points.

If anyone here hated WotC, they wouldn't be playing D&D. There are precious few people at ENWorld not playing D&D or D20 fantasy games.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> I guess I don't see it as unprofessional.  I can see how it could disrupt the illusion of a cozy gaming industry, but I think WotC looks at it more from a business standpoint than a strive to be friendly to competitors.



Given the relatively small number of people working professionally in the field, Charles was dismissing the work of former WotC employees, freelancers and future WotC employees.

This is not a_generic_industry, this is an industry with well under 1,000 creative professionals working on a regular basis. Talking crap about the guy who turned in a manuscript to you last week and you've just asked to submit ideas for a book due next year by saying his work that's not bound between WotC covers is both unprofessional and unwise. It's also a pretty crappy way to treat your friends and I have to assume Charles has at least a few of them in the industry.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Thanks for stopping by, Charles.
> 
> If you are talking about production values and sales, yeah, few can even compete.
> 
> ...




/agree


----------



## Maggan (Oct 6, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> For example, comb through reviews of WotC products and note that proofreading errors, from text to stat blocks, are a frequent complaint among reviewers, a trend that suggests editing as a "production value" is lacking in many WotC books.




I checked John Coopers reviews, because he always seems to find the mistakes in each book. All in all, 3rd party publishers seem to have their share of the same problem.

Based on that unscientific sample, I would say 3rd party production values are equally lacking, it's just that WotC is scrutinised harder and more often. I'd say they are at least as good as many of their competitors*.

Saying "I think we are the best" is not saying "we are perfect". Given that, there could be 3rd party stuff that is of better integrity ruleswise than WotC, but I wouldn't know what it is. 

/M

* But of course, one could make the claim that they should be better than their competitors, since it is their own system.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> But of course, one could make the claim that they should be better than their competitors, since it is their own system.



And they have the economic advantages Charles cited. If anyone can afford to hire both copy editors and rules/stats editors, it should be them.

They're not alone in this, though. White Wolf famously has the exact same problem. Worse, in fact. (See page XX for details.)


----------



## Maggan (Oct 6, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's also a pretty crappy way to treat your friends and I have to assume Charles has at least a few of them in the industry.




I would assume so too, and I would be surprised if they are outraged by him saying this. Some might be outraged, but then again, I think he has a few ... not-friends ... in the industry as well. Everyone has.

FWIW, I work in the industry from time to time, and I don't take offense at what Charles Ryan said. Because I know that my stuff is the exception to the rule, which is probably what everyone else is saying about their own stuff as well ... 

/M


----------



## MerricB (Oct 6, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I suspect he meant more that attempting to compete with WotC in its own shtick is bad buisness, not that making adventures is good buisness.




That's mostly my reading of it; although I will add that there *is* a market for adventures, and thus producing adventures (as Necromancer Games has shown) can build a profitable business. 

There was a great thread by Clark Peterson somewhere on ENworld about what sort of adventures made Necromancer Games successful. 

However, and here's a factor that I don't think Charles Ryan (or Ryan Dancey) took into account, the distribution model RPGs use is heavily weighted against adventures in general, and non-Wizards adventures even more so.

I suspect it was better in the very early days of the d20 System. (Ask Clark about early sales of Rappan Athuk). However, because of the glut of just plain bad product in first days of d20, distributors and retailers were burnt badly by non-Wizards products - and particularly adventures.

The market may now be recovering somewhat, thanks largely to the stable d20 System publishers.

I will say, as an aside, that it is extremely difficult for me to get non-Wizards products. My FLGS doesn't really carry them. Those that *really* attract my attention, I can get, but mostly I am restricted to Wizards products. What helps greatly is that I love what Wizards make. I am not alone in these buying patterns, although I sometimes feel that way on ENworld.

Returning to Charles' comments, and setting aside his belief that Wizards' products have better content (debatable at the best of times), there's some rather good advice there.

Quite frankly, if Wizards puts out a book like Complete Warrior, how could a publisher compete by putting out a book like "The Essential Fighter"? They need an edge. Wizards has a distinct advantage in the combination of production values and lower (relative) production costs on bigger books. Economies of scale and all that. 

"Better content" is so much a problematical scale. There are books that are so bad that it's obvious, but you're very rarely going to get a Wizards' book like that. At the level at which you're competing, we should assume that content isn't going to be a deciding factor. The official status of Wizards' D&D products hold more weight for the majority of consumers. Yes, you'll get some people who'll support you, but will it be enough?

Being first tends to help. (See the Creature Collection). I've a feeling the Quintessential books of Mongoose also fall into this category, and once they had the initial surge, they could continue with their own branding and popularity.

However, if you can't be first, and you're competing directly with Wizards - not so good. Better to be producting something that doesn't compete directly with the Wizards products.

Once a company is established with a fanbase - and does so by being first, being different from Wizards, or such like - then it is more able to compete directly with Wizards, but you still have the ongoing problem of any directly competing product splitting the buyers, and mostly likely the balance going in Wizards favour.

What are the current _successful_ d20 publishers doing? There seems to be a surge of alternative rule sets and settings at present. What else? In what areas are they different from Wizards, and what areas are they directly competing?

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Oct 6, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Worse, in fact. (See page XX for details.)




Amazingly, page XX has turned up in both _Fantastic Locations: Fane of the Drow_ and _Sons of Gruumsh_. I don't understand it!

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Oct 6, 2005)

> *Originally Posted by CharlesRyan*
> _we have the largest, most experienced collection of game-design minds assembled on this planet. _
> 
> *Originally Posted by Aus_Snow*
> Again, not really. It's partly just who _happens to work there_. After all, several of WotC's brightest ended up elsewhere, and doing very well at those places, no?




Try contesting the "largest" again, please. I want to laugh a bit more.

I think there might be two to four ex-Wizards designers that you could say are doing well in the d20 System business. "Getting by" would describe most of the rest, if that.

It's well worth looking at the names of the freelancers who work for Wizards these days.

I do agree with Psion: the exodus of design staff did hurt Wizards (stupid Pokemon managers), but their recent rebuilding (three or four new hires?) and selection of freelancers is very promising.

Cheers!


----------



## Staffan (Oct 6, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> For example, comb through reviews of WotC products and note that proofreading errors, from text to stat blocks, are a frequent complaint among reviewers, a trend that suggests editing as a "production value" is lacking in many WotC books.



I think, in many cases, reviewers treat WOTC products more harshly than third-party books (or possibly, it's just that more people buy WOTC books if they only have a slight interest in them, while the people who buy third-party books tend to be more positive toward the book to begin with). For example, one of the most highly regarded recent 3rd-party releases has been Iron Heroes. This despite the fact that even the author himself has said that a big chunk of it, the magic system, is below par - but people still give it a pass and like it (though I couldn't find any reviews of it on the site). Had WOTC made a book and given so little attention to a subsystem that way, people would have been yelling for blood.


----------



## GRIMJIM (Oct 6, 2005)

I can see some, limited, appeal in 'modules' for the older crowd coming back and without so much time to spend preparing and so on, and D20 is not a game that is particularly easy to run 'on the fly' but adventures always suffer from railroading in a way sourcebooks and adventure seeds don't.

I'm not convinced we're getting a lot of new blood in and more experienced gamers don't need, or necessarily want relatively facile printed adventures IMO.


----------



## James Heard (Oct 6, 2005)

_Nah. Go ahead, spit on each other for having different opinions._


----------



## Maggan (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Again, not really. It's partly just who _happens to work there_. After all, several of WotC's brightest ended up elsewhere, and doing very well at those places, no?




I don't get it. Charles Ryan is saying that they have great guys and gals working there, and that they have a lot of them, more than anyone else. He didn't say "all great designers work here".

What has the fate of people who are no longer with WotC to do with that? Unless these brightest stars ended up in the same place, which they didn't.

I'm not sure what you're trying to refute, actually.

/M


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Try contesting the "largest" again, please. I want to laugh a bit more.



No, I was in fact only contesting the other part, as you might or might not already have been aware.

Either way, it was of course my mistake, and if that provided some amusement for you, then cool!  The part I _was_ contesting though? No, my response to that stands quite well, methinks. 





			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I think there might be two to four ex-Wizards designers that you could say are doing well in the d20 System business. "Getting by" would describe most of the rest, if that.
> 
> It's well worth looking at the names of the freelancers who work for Wizards these days.
> 
> I do agree with Psion: the exodus of design staff did hurt Wizards (stupid Pokemon managers), but their recent rebuilding (three or four new hires?) and selection of freelancers is very promising.



I think 'several' is usually acceptable for encompassing that kind of range, yeah? *shrug*

The rest? I agree.

Look, however a couple of my posts might have been interpreted by some, I wasn't (and I'm still not) 'out to get' anyone, whatsoever. I took issue with a single statement, and later with a 'clarification' of that one and others from the same quoted text.

I honestly wish WotC (and their 'competitors'!) all the best in their endeavours. It's not some bizarre fanatical hate thing, at least not where I'm coming from.






			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> I don't get it. Charles Ryan is saying that they have great guys and gals working there, and that they have a lot of them, more than anyone else. He didn't say "all great designers work here".
> 
> What has the fate of people who are no longer with WotC to do with that? Unless these brightest stars ended up in the same place, which they didn't.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're trying to refute, actually.



Well, what he actually said was this: 







> we have the largest, *most experienced* collection of game-design minds assembled on this planet.



- which I challenged. However, I did the same as with the other thing earlier in this post - poor cut'n'pasting, I s'pose. Should've been more cut, less paste. In other words, I only had a problem with the part I've now added emphasis to. Hope that's a bit clearer.


----------



## Belen (Oct 6, 2005)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> True, but Ryan is suggesting that not making adventures is the reason why many d20 publishers are struggling these days, a rather ludicrous proposition.    Yes, the drop in module publishing is correlated with drops in d20 company profits, just like murder rates are correlated with ice cream sales.




And I would agree with Mr. Ryan.  d20 companies are horrible at supporting the products that they sell.  D&D gets support from free adventures and Dungeon magazine.  The 3rd party publishers could care less.  They throw out a hardcover and then never reference it again.  When was the last time we got an original Freeport adventure?  Black sails?  

Adventures support the core material produced.  3rd party publishers do not support their own stuff.

It's sad and I get more angry about it as time goes on.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I don't get it. Charles Ryan is saying that they have great guys and gals working there, and that they have a lot of them, more than anyone else. He didn't say "all great designers work here".
> 
> What has the fate of people who are no longer with WotC to do with that? Unless these brightest stars ended up in the same place, which they didn't.
> 
> ...




And in many cases, it's not like WoTC has an exclusive contract or that the employees can't work there again. Bruce Cordel has done stuff for Malhavoc, but hey, he's got a WoTC book coming out soon right?

And look at Mike Mearls, the one man industry. He's now at WoTC, but for a long time, worked with everyone just about.


----------



## Belen (Oct 6, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> That post is funny on so many levels.




Please elaborate.  I love GR, but I would not call them a DM-friendly company.  There is just not enough support, although it looks like that may be changing with Thieves' World.  We'll have to see.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 6, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Given the relatively small number of people working professionally in the field, Charles was dismissing the work of former WotC employees, freelancers and future WotC employees.
> 
> This is not a_generic_industry, this is an industry with well under 1,000 creative professionals working on a regular basis. Talking crap about the guy who turned in a manuscript to you last week and you've just asked to submit ideas for a book due next year by saying his work that's not bound between WotC covers is both unprofessional and unwise. It's also a pretty crappy way to treat your friends and I have to assume Charles has at least a few of them in the industry.




I fail to see how proclaiming yourself the best is completely dismissing the work of former WotC employees, freelancers and future WotC employees.  There can be room for quality products from many different sources and when one proclaims themselves the best it does not make all other products suddenly non-quality products.

Generic or small the RPG industry is still a business.  Do the people that are in it love what they do?  Most likely.  But that does not change the fact it is a business.  Proclamations of being the best is part of being a business.  Not proclamations of "hey we do okay".  That is hardly "talking crap".

Also note that I do not necessarily say I agree with the statement that WotC is the best, but I certainly can't fault them for trying to say they are.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 6, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I think 'several' is usually acceptable for encompassing that kind of range, yeah? *shrug*




"A few", I think.  

One thing that is well worth us all remembering is that there have been quite a lot more people involved in d20 System publications than the companies who have a presence here. Thankfully, most have disappeared, but I guess we'll see them pop up from time to time.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Wizards have in their library a copy of every d20 System (and related) product. When Charles is speaking - as he implied - he's got a much different view from us. (You mean there are companies apart from Wizards, Necromancer Games and Malhavoc?!? )

Cheers!


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> When was the last time we got an original Freeport adventure?




Monday 13 June, 2005
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4950&

or would it be Saturday 27 August, 2005
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=5375&


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 6, 2005)

Freeport adventures... They definitely show that Charles might be wrong on one point: You need to be an experienced designer with a good grasp of the rules to make a adventure - at least if you desperetely need to create your own monsters. 
Though, on second thought, actually, no, you don't need that, just some common sense and a tiny little bit of experience :/ . (Otherwise, the adventures seem to be good.)


----------



## Henry (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Please elaborate.  I love GR, but I would not call them a DM-friendly company.  There is just not enough support, although it looks like that may be changing with Thieves' World.  We'll have to see.




Depends on what you're looking at; the Mutants and Masterminds line they produced is supported as much as any WotC product; heck, it's supported more than Eberron at the current time (having a drop on Eberron by two years, admittedly). Also, thanks to the Superlink license, there's a good bit of extra material in the chain for adventures, NPCs, and new powers, too. 

Charles Ryan was likely putting a little marketing into his response to Merric, which I don't have a problem with, as well as his personal opinion, which is cool; I just disagree like crazy with the assertion that WotC does supplements in general better than anyone else, if you're talking actual content. In production values, maybe - even then, there are two or three top companies that rival them, though it costs them a LOT more to do so than WotC. In content, however, I've seen far more innovative developments, usable ideas, and creative elements that I can use from AEG, Green Ronin, Blue Devil Games, and EN Publishing than I have WotC.

I've been personally unimpressed enough with the WotC material from this year (Stormwrack, Incarnum, Lords of Madness, Weapons of Legacy, etc.) that I just haven't bought them, and to be honest, from my glimpses of Five Nations, Explorer's Handbook, and Races of Eberron in the bookstore, they don't have enough innovative material to make me want to buy them. (I bought Races of Eberron and returned it because it really didn't have enough new story material to make me want to keep it. I have NO use for the Lifeforged, the Warforged items, the racially bound prestige classes, etc.)

On the other hand, what have i kept? Arcana Evolved (running a game with it now), Black Company (bought it in March, and even ran a few games with it), Spycraft 2.0 (hesitant about running as-is, but planning to strip it for items and ideas in other games), and Poisoncraft (this one is older, but I bought it because I needed a poison reference, and this one stomps on anything else out there, FLAT.) Compare this to WotC's previous offerings, everything from Call of Cthulhu d20, to the Splatbooks, to recently the Complete Warrior/Divine/Arcane/Adventurer, and the excellent Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, and Eberron Core book. In my experience, I've been finding LESS in the WotC line, and more in the other publishers. (one exception: DMG 2. One bright spot in a year of so far unoriginality. That book's first chapter by Robin was worth the whole book, plus the parts on PCs running businesses, the challenging environments, and the magical locations. Even if I never use those rather unoriginal magic items in the back, the rest of the bookwas quite golden.)

However, I DO agree with Belen Umeria that third party support as a whole is lacking. Not only are companies not supporting some very good concepts, but they are jumping from one to the other looking for the "killer app" among gamers. One thing I also wish would happen more is cross-over works. The kind of joined effort I used to see with things like the Bluffside efforts, the Diamond Throne support from Fiery Dragon and Ironwind Metals, etc. is one way for smaller companies to pool their efforts and look and perform as if "bigger."

DO I have a negative opinion of WotC? No, of course not, because (1) I have high hopes now that they've hired someone like Mike Mearls on the Developing team; maybe we'll see ideas that work a bit better, and I'll find things from them I like again. and also (2) like all cycles, I'm sure it'll swing back around to things I do like again. But saying WotC does it "better than everyone else" I'll take umbrage with, when I see the past six months worth of releases that offer very little to me.


----------



## Numion (Oct 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan was likely putting a little marketing into his response to Merric, which I don't have a problem with, as well as his personal opinion, which is cool; I just disagree like crazy with the assertion that WotC does supplements in general better than anyone else, if you're talking actual content. In production values, maybe - even then, there are two or three top companies that rival them, though it costs them a LOT more to do so than WotC. In content, however, I've seen far more innovative developments, usable ideas, and creative elements that I can use from AEG, Green Ronin, Blue Devil Games, and EN Publishing than I have WotC.




Is it your opinion that innovative, usable ideas and creative ideas mean better products? Because I think that there's a loooong way between a great idea, innovation, whatever and a great RPG product. I'd think that most people are looking for solid material that's made easy for them to use and implement in games. ENWorlds crowd, I think, steers more towards the crowd that doesn't use the products "as is" as much as they mine stuff for ideas for their own games.

This might be a reason why WotC guys idea of the best product clashes so much with the ENWorld crowd.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Oct 6, 2005)

I wonder if they are going to start tinkering with the format of adventures? Most adventures follows the same formula; background, synopsis, dungeon, appendix. Boxed text presentation of every encouter and so on. What if the module was presented as a comic?

The rules of Wizards latest submit-a-scenario challenge does seem to reinforce the old and tried format but you never know. Besides, why can't you publish modules aimed at players to buy?


----------



## Henry (Oct 6, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I'd think that most people are looking for solid material that's made easy for them to use and implement in games...This might be a reason why WotC guys idea of the best product clashes so much with the ENWorld crowd.




I agree, which is why I say nothing about Stormwrack's, Races of Eberron's, or Explorer's Handbook sales figures (I'm sure they still sold far more than any competitor's product). But to talk about sales, you're talking about exposure and availability. Often I see complaints on WotC's forums from people who steer clear of d20 products without even looking at them, yet complain:

_Why doesn't WotC make better rules on Mass combat?
Why doesn't WotC have good rules on making Poisons?
Why doesn't WotC have books of Generic NPCs?
Why doesn't WotC make more stuff for Modern Adventures?_

A blind eye is often turned simply because they don't know that the answers to their needs are not found solely with WotC, turning away some spectacular product that answers their questions.

Just as Charles has the opinion, _"Nobody does supplements better than us,"_ I have the opinion, _"Some people are doing supplements WotC's NEVER DONE."_

In one sense, I'm glad that WotC hasn't entered the Ennies in recent years, because there's so much good material that goes overlooked because it doesn't have the WotC stamp.


----------



## Belen (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Monday 13 June, 2005
> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4950&
> 
> or would it be Saturday 27 August, 2005
> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=5375&




I do not pay attention to PDF.  Not to mention that PDF only serves the people who bother with chasing down the information and a desire to be knowdegeable about the industry.

PDF is a lame way to support your lines.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I do not pay attention to PDF.  Not to mention that PDF only serves the people who bother with chasing down the information and a desire to be knowdegeable about the industry.
> 
> PDF is a lame way to support your lines.





I disagree. PDF is an excellent way to support your line to customers who are...

1. Online savy.

2. Small customer base.

3. Products that may be part of a print compilation latter.

I'm not saying PDF's are for everyone but they do serve a purpose and some products, even from some of the better known companies, wouldn't be possible without them.


----------



## Belen (Oct 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> In one sense, I'm glad that WotC hasn't entered the Ennies in recent years, because there's so much good material that goes overlooked because it doesn't have the WotC stamp.




Actually, I get the sense that Wizards does not enter the Ennies because they feel that ENWorlders will not give them a chance.  Certainly, this thread seems to point to that scenario.  And the Ennies suffer a seriously legitimacy issue because Wizards does not enter.


----------



## Belen (Oct 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> However, I DO agree with Belen Umeria that third party support as a whole is lacking. Not only are companies not supporting some very good concepts, but they are jumping from one to the other looking for the "killer app" among gamers. One thing I also wish would happen more is cross-over works. The kind of joined effort I used to see with things like the Bluffside efforts, the Diamond Throne support from Fiery Dragon and Ironwind Metals, etc. is one way for smaller companies to pool their efforts and look and perform as if "bigger."




I have zero confidence in 3rd party publishers to support any of their "D&D/d20" lines.  For instance, Midnight is a world I love, but you really need direction to break the normal D&D style of playing.  There has been 2 adventures for that setting.

Freeport.  A great setting that a lot of people love.  There were five adventures printed and nothing new (other than PDF) in well over a year.

At least Wizards supports the people who buy in to their games and worlds.


----------



## Belen (Oct 6, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I disagree. PDF is an excellent way to support your line to customers who are...
> 
> 1. Online savy.
> 
> ...




Sure...they are a good way to support their ENWorlder fanbase, but not everyone is an ENWorlder.  However, RPGNow does not even pop up on google if you search for "Freeport Adventures."

PDF is a sad way to support your fanbase, especially for lines that have been printed.  For instance, my wife ran Freeport as her first ever campaign a few years ago.  We all loved it, but nothing new was printed and it died when she was out of material.

If you cannot support your lines, people will stop using them.


----------



## Henry (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I get the sense that Wizards does not enter the Ennies because they feel that ENWorlders will not give them a chance.  Certainly, this thread seems to point to that scenario.  And the Ennies suffer a seriously legitimacy issue because Wizards does not enter.




I wish that they would enter, because other publishers would win or lose based on their own merits and not by some perceived "handicapping" like some people have insinuated in past years. The biggest problem is that many voters will vote just because they know of a product, not because they've compared them. On the other hand, the new voting system used for the Ennies assauges that somewhat, so it's not the problem it was.

As for ENWorlders not giving them a chance? 90% of the conversation here is almost solely about WotC products, good, bad, and ugly. The traffic on the d20 Systems forum is a fraction of the General and Rules traffic.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I get the sense that Wizards does not enter the Ennies because they feel that ENWorlders will not give them a chance.  Certainly, this thread seems to point to that scenario.  And the Ennies suffer a seriously legitimacy issue because Wizards does not enter.




I of course do not know for sure why Wizards does not enter the ENnies these days, someone closer to the ENnies might know.  I do know that when they entered in 2002 there certainly didn't seem to be any prejudice towards them from EN World.


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> . . . *Charles:* As many people on these boards know, when third edition and the d20 License launched, we thought a lot of third parties would see adventures for D&D as a great opportunity.  . . . Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else).




"*etter than anyone else?"    Only if you just turn the glossy colorful pages and look at the pretty pictures.  If you _read_ the material, a slightly less condescendingly rosy picture emerges, much more of a mixed bag.

"[C]ompete directly with us?"  ::best Scooby-Doo voice:: "Ruh-roh!"  *


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Oct 6, 2005)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> <big snip for space>
> Compare that to a typical adventure: A creative, talented author with a good idea, a solid grasp of D&D, and a few thousand bucks can put out a really good adventure--perhaps as good or better than anything we can do. Aside from our brand, all of our competitive advantage is neutralized in this category.
> <more snipping>
> 
> The key to a healthy gaming marketplace is a diversified portfolio--a range of products offered to the consumer that cover all of his or her needs, with just enough duplication to ensure healthy competition. The d20 community, as a whole, hasn't delivered. (And again, this isn't a slam on any company that is delivering!) That results in A) a hole that WotC is now going to fill, and B) a d20 industry that's really struggling. Which is what I said in my original reply to Merric.




Okay, I have several comments for a thread that is probably close to getting closed soon based on some of the posts I have scanned through.

First, WotC IS the big kid on the block. They have the best sales, distribution, production values (in terms of printing, printing materials, etc.) and best name with retailers. Those of you that want to argue that there are "better" 3rd party products can do so. This is a business, WotC is in first place and, while there are others in the game, second place is pretty far back. I don't know many freelancers that would turn down an opportunity to work on a product for WotC, I know I wouldn't. Keep in mind that however large you believe the ENWorl community is, it is a tiny fish in a big ocean. The opinions here are NOT representative of the product-buying whole.

Second, "*Aside from our brand, all of our competitive advantage is neutralized in this category.*" Re-quoted from above. Charles, you let Necromancer Games slap the official "Dungeons and Dragons" logo on our next adventure and let us help you determine how much that "brand" is really worth. I am thinking it can only increase our sales by say, 25-100 times the usual.

The DnD logo is HUGE. After some companies (that don't exist anymore) put out some horrible adventures it got REALLY difficult to get picked up by retailers and distributors. You have the DnD logo, distributors will carry you and bookstores will pick up the book and customers will buy it simply due to the logo.

3rd party companies with a focus on adventures have several problems. 
First, we can't compete with Dungeon magazine for short adventures, plain and simple. Dungeon prints 4-color, uses quality color art (even though I don't like all of it) and has quality material (for the most part). 
Second, distribution; it is hard to get picked up by distributors. Guys like Joe Goodman (who does this full-time) have to spend lots of time making certain retailers and distributors pick them up. He also does a number of other books that help maintain a good relationship with distributors and retailers. Retailers want books large enough to have the title on the spine, this means at least 96 pages. They simply don't have retail space to display you cover out after the first week-3weeks of release.
Third, the reason that many 3rd party companies focus on other material is that for the same effort as creating an adventure, other supplement material can make you more money and sell more books.

Notice my 3rd point. It isn't that adventures DO NOT make money, it is simply the fact that other material makes MORE money for the SAME effort. If you are running a business and employing people full-time (like Mongoose and Green Ronin as two examples), you have an obligation to your employees (and probably your family as well) to focus on the products that are going to earn more money. Notice that both of these companies are publishing (or planning to publish) adventure material, it simply isn't the main focus of either. I am sure people are going to argue with the idea of feeling obligated to earn as much money as possible, run a business and employ people dependant on your business for the $ to feed their families (not just your own) and you might have a different perspective.

Finally, I would agree that some d20 companies are "struggling" but I am not certain I would extend that to the whole market nor even to RPGs as a whole. One of my LGS's has told me that they have had higher sales on RPGs the past 6 months than anything else they sell in the store, something that hasn't happened since 3e first came out.

Patrick (one of those other Necromancer Games' Guys)


----------



## Belen (Oct 6, 2005)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Finally, I would agree that some d20 companies are "struggling" but I am not certain I would extend that to the whole market nor even to RPGs as a whole. One of my LGS's has told me that they have had higher sales on RPGs the past 6 months than anything else they sell in the store, something that hasn't happened since 3e first came out.
> 
> Patrick (one of those other Necromancer Games' Guys)




I think that part of the trouble with Necromancer is that they publish adventures with other logos on them such as Troll Lord, Sword/Sorcery etc.  It is really hard for my game store to know when you guys have something produced.  I actually have to send them a list of companies and specific necromancer products so that they carry you.

People love your stuff, but I think it is slightly confusing for less than savvy store owners.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I think that part of the trouble with Necromancer is that they publish adventures with other logos on them such as Troll Lord, Sword/Sorcery etc.  It is really hard for my game store to know when you guys have something produced.  I actually have to send them a list of companies and specific necromancer products so that they carry you.
> 
> People love your stuff, but I think it is slightly confusing for less than savvy store owners.




NG is more focused on creating products than taking care of the "other stuff." This means that Bill and Clark make agreements with other companies to take care of "fulfillment." This means NG's publishing partners assume some of the risk (and profits) and agree to take care of layout, assigning artwork, printing, warehousing, and delivery/distribution.

We are working on getting better about letting retailers and distributors know who we are.

Thanks,
Patrick


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It dulls your skills and you turn out crap product.




Except it doesn't.  I've meet some very arrogant game writers that still put out great books.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 6, 2005)

Let me also jump on the wagon of "give us a year with the D&D logo on our products." Maybe have a review panel, and only allow 2 products a month to get the logo. But I imagine the folks who got the nod from WotC would be buying some extra dice with their spoils.

Or, y'know, blowing it on cocaine. I don't know what the other designers do, but I can't resist a good hit of the C.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 6, 2005)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Second, "*Aside from our brand, all of our competitive advantage is neutralized in this category.*" Re-quoted from above. Charles, you let Necromancer Games slap the official "Dungeons and Dragons" logo on our next adventure and let us help you determine how much that "brand" is really worth. I am thinking it can only increase our sales by say, 25-100 times the usual.
> 
> The DnD logo is HUGE. After some companies (that don't exist anymore) put out some horrible adventures it got REALLY difficult to get picked up by retailers and distributors. You have the DnD logo, distributors will carry you and bookstores will pick up the book and customers will buy it simply due to the logo.




In terms of the brand, Kenzer uses it and I don't hear about them being the 2nd largest leader in the industry. Ravenloft used it and I believe it's no longer being supported. I'm not saying that it's useless, just that more seems to be attributed to it here than it's actually worth.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 6, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> I of course do not know for sure why Wizards does not enter the ENnies these days, someone closer to the ENnies might know.  I do know that when they entered in 2002 there certainly didn't seem to be any prejudice towards them from EN World.




But when they won, some people complained that they were bastards for entering.   

/m


----------



## Maggan (Oct 6, 2005)

Regarding the Ennies, isn't there are rule for submissions that you  have to have a ceratain amount of open content in the d20 categories?

Which would rule out WotC entering. I don't know, but someone might know, didn't find the submission guidelines.

/M


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I checked John Coopers reviews, because he always seems to find the mistakes in each book. All in all, 3rd party publishers seem to have their share of the same problem.
> 
> Based on that unscientific sample, I would say 3rd party production values are equally lacking, it's just that WotC is scrutinised harder and more often. I'd say they are at least as good as many of their competitors*.





			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> * But of course, one could make the claim that they should be better than their competitors, since it is their own system.



If both WotC and third-party publishers suffer from similar problems in production values, then WotC's work is merely equally mediocre - either way, Mr. Ryan's claim rings false.

And if WotC's work gets scrutinized a little harder than anyone else's, well that's the burden of publishing under the most influential brand name (_Dungeons and Dragons_, not Wizards of the Coast) in the history of roleplaying games.

After I posted last night I had to drive to Home Depot to buy a new faucet aerator for the kitchen sink and I was thinking about this while I was driving. My first reaction on reading Mr. Ryan's quote was, "Wow, how incredibly arrogant!" In retrospect I think my reaction, while genuine, was a bit unfair.

I can respect that fact that Mr. Ryan takes pride in his work. What struck me wrong was that it seemed to be offered up as ineluctable fact rather than personal opinion - while conceding that this was a comment from an online chat transcript, not a press release, my experience tells me that Mr. Ryan is where he is because of his ability (among many others) to carefully tender the company line, so I'm less inclined to see this as an offhand comment. Had Mr. Ryan said, "I believe that we make the best hardcover sourcebooks," I know my reaction would've been different.

The other reason I think I had such a strong reaction is that, like *Henry* mentioned, I find so much of what comes from WotC to be inferior to the work from other publishers, and that seems to grow more and more each year. For me, the words "best" and "WotC" exist only in some sort of Bizarro World, at least if we're talking about the things that matter most to me as a gamer: slick glossy pages and well-stitched bindings are nice, and WotC's economy of scale certainly makes it a leader in the physical production of books, but at the end of the day a black-and-white .pdf with really solid rules and tons of inspiring ideas is "best" from where I sit.

What is "best" for me are the things that make my games fun to play, and in this regard there are far, far more misses than hits from WotC. In the past two years I've purchased  two WotC books (out of a total of five, by the way) that made me say, "Wow, this is _great_!" (_Frostburn_ and d20 _Apocalypse_). Otherwise I find their products to range from the simply mediocre to the laughably bad.

(Oh, and production values? I haven't seen anything from WotC that can touch Green Ronin's _The Nocturnals_ sourcebook. Best. Gaming Book. Ever.)

Finally, I think it's too easy to dismiss ENWorlders as being some sort of anti-WotC elite. Certainly most ENWorlders are pretty dedicated, but I think that participation in an online community of gamers improves the ability to make critical evaluations - for example, I know that time spent here and on other bulletin boards improved my knowledge of how the mechanics function in d20, so that I can make more informed choices about the products I see and buy (or don't, as the case may be). If there's a tendency to be more critical of WotC, perhaps it comes from the fact that the posters on ENWorld tend to be a bit more knowledgeable than other gamers.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 6, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Insulting one's competitors is (A bad thing).  Anybody in sales knows this
> 
> Great way to drive the customer to the other guy.




Yeah, that's why you never see politicians using negative campaigning and washing powders never compare themselves with "another leading brand."  :\


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's why you never see politicians using negative campaigning and washing powders never compare themselves with "another leading brand."  :\



Negative campaigning is known to cause people with extreme views to polarize, and to lose people on the edge to other side. It can be used by underdogs who don't have much to lose anyways, although for some reason it's getting more prevalent lately. Probably has more to do with unafilliated partisans and the newfound ease of publishing opinions ("submit reply button").

I don't know if I've seen too many commercials where they specifically call out a competitor's name in a long time. Why? There's a big fast-food chain that made that mistake once... and it supposedly cost them a *lot* of customers.

BUT! I don't think CR is insulting any competitors anyway. He'd have to specifically name someone for it to be an insult IMO. He's making a critique of 3rd-parties _in general_. We can all realize that it's therefore a _generalization_ and doesn't include everyone hmmm?


----------



## Pramas (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Please elaborate.  I love GR, but I would not call them a DM-friendly company.  There is just not enough support, although it looks like that may be changing with Thieves' World.  We'll have to see.




I find the inference that d20 publishers would be in a better place if they had stuck to adventures funny because it's like criticizing the irrigation methods Vietnamese farmers after their fields have been napalmed. 

As for Freeport's "lack of support", within the past three months there's been the following releases:
1) Freeport Trilogy 5-Year Anniversary Edition, which compiles, expands, and 3.5 updates the original Freeport adventures and adds a new short adventure to the mix as well.
http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1901
2) Vengeance in Freeport, a PDF adventure that acts as a sequel to the Freeport Trilogy.
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4950&
3) Shadows in Freeport, an adventure in Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics line written by Green Ronin's d20 line developer, Robert J Schwalb, and set in the City of Adventure. 

Early next year we're releasing Crisis in Freeport (see below), a new mid-level adventure that finally resolves the succession crisis. Starting soon now you'll also see several new Freeport PDF adventures done under license by Adamant Entertainment. 

Now all that is in addition to Creatures of Freeport, Denizens of Freeport, Tales of Freeport, Black Sails Over Freeport, Hell in Freeport, and of course Freeport: the City of Adventure. That's an awful of grist for the campaign mill. 

Here's a sneak peak at Crisis in Freeport:

*Crisis in Freeport*
A d20 System Adventure for Characters Level 7-9
Written by Chris Pramas and Robert J. Schwalb
Format: 64 pages, perfect-bound
MSRP: $16.95
GRR1902
ISBN: 1-932442-56-1    

Sea Lord Drac is dead but peace has not come to the City of Adventure. With no blood relative or named successor, Drac has created turmoil with his demise. Will the Captains' Council be able to maintain control or will Freeport erupt into a vicious civil war? As tensions rise, the PCs get entangled in the machinations of the succession crisis. Many covet the Sea Lord's power but only one can succeed the mad Milton Drac. Will the new Sea Lord return Freeport to its golden age or herald in a new era of terror?


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Charles:* Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else).






			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> (Remember, from where I sit, I see the entire d20 spectrum--not just the companies that do well enough to develop a vocal following on EN World.) Those twenty have choked the RPG supply chain with product that doesn't move because it doesn't address a need or do anything better than what we do.
> 
> The key to a healthy gaming marketplace is a diversified portfolio--a range of products offered to the consumer that cover all of his or her needs, with just enough duplication to ensure healthy competition. The d20 community, as a whole, hasn't delivered. (And again, this isn't a slam on any company that is delivering!) That results in A) a hole that WotC is now going to fill, and B) a d20 industry that's really struggling.




(1) d20 publishers are "competing" with Wotc, not producing adventures like they were supposed to;

(2) Wotc makes the best products;

(3) Wotc knows all and sees all in the d20 marketplace;

(4) "The d20 community, as a whole, has not delivered."

(5) The d20 industry is "struggling."



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> . . .Mr. Ryan's statement makes it look like WotC views 3rd party publishers as competitors now, not allies. This makes me concerned that perhaps WotC, if it releases 4th edition, might not make it open content,  . . .




Kudos to the perceptive Ranger!

::best Scooby-Doo voice:: "Ruh-roh"


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I find the inference that d20 publishers would be in a better place if they had stuck to adventures funny because it's like criticizing the irrigation methods Vietnamese farmers after their fields have been napalmed.





Respect for Pramas, waning...

Please, tell me who did the napalming of the d20 fields, and who initially planted the seeds? This is more like sharecroppers refusing to rotate their crops and ruining their leasors lands.


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I get the sense that Wizards does not enter the Ennies because they feel that ENWorlders will not give them a chance.  Certainly, this thread seems to point to that scenario.




Quite the contrary. Everyone has their favorite company, but WotC is the one company everyone knows. Due to their market penetration, WotC always will have a huge advantage in the fan vote.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 6, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> (1) d20 publishers are "competing" with Wotc, not producing adventures like they were supposed to;
> 
> (2) Wotc makes the best products;
> 
> ...



I think that of these five points, all but #2 are pretty clearly accurate, and #2 is arguably accurate (an argument can be made against it, but an equally valid argument can be made for it).  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

1) of course they're competing.  This may or may not be a good idea, but they are absolutely competing.
2) see above.
3) They're the only ones who do serious market research.  They may not know all (and Charles Ryan didn't claim they did) but I think it's safe to say they have a better overall picture than anyone else does.
4) and 5) work together.  If the d20 community is struggling, it almost by definition must not be delivering.  I suppose you could argue that they are providing exactly what the market wants, but still struggling, but then you have to explain WoTC's big sales numbers in some way.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Freeport.  A great setting that a lot of people love.  There were five adventures printed and nothing new (other than PDF) in well over a year.




Shadows in Freeport is available in print as well as PDF.  http://goodmangames.com/5019preview.php





			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Regarding the Ennies, isn't there are rule for submissions that you have to have a ceratain amount of open content in the d20 categories?
> 
> Which would rule out WotC entering. I don't know, but someone might know, didn't find the submission guidelines.




No. The ENnies are (and have been the past 2 years) open to any and all RPG publishers. WotC would have been eligible for competing in any and all cateogries they felt appropriate, had they entered. We were told (by Mr. Ryan) that they would not be participating when we asked them to enter their best books.


----------



## philreed (Oct 6, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Now all that is in addition to Creatures of Freeport, Denizens of Freeport, Tales of Freeport, Black Sails Over Freeport, Hell in Freeport, and of course Freeport: the City of Adventure. That's an awful of grist for the campaign mill.




And Treasures of Freeport.

Plus I know that there's more Freeport stuff coming. From here it looks pretty well supported.


----------



## Nikchick (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Please, tell me who did the napalming of the d20 fields, and who initially planted the seeds? This is more like sharecroppers refusing to rotate their crops and ruining their leasors lands.




WotC released 3.5 with so many incremental changes that all mastery of the previous system was out the window.  The release of 3.5 forced every consumer to make the choice: upgrade or don't.  That fractured the "d20 market" into people satisfied with 3.0 and people willing to update to 3.5; it made years worth of work "obsolete" and unappealing to those who updated to 3.5 and forced many publishers to make the jump to supporting the current rules set and selling to the 3.5 players (which was a subset of the total number of people previously purchasing 3.0 and substantially smaller).  WotC's decision to revise the D&D rules in the way that they did was no small event for d20 publishers, even those who made the transition successfully. 

I'm not willing to take the blame for "ruining" the lands of my supposed overlords.  My company produces quality product in a responsible manner, and we have from the start. If we're to believe that the d20 "movement" has been at all good, that the strategy has been a success for WotC, then we must also recognize that WotC benefitted from the early support of their SRD/OGL/d20 plan by companies like mine.  I refuse to be painted as some sort of serf who owes to WotC more than we've already paid back through our high quality support and our responsible business practices. I assert outright that we've earned the respect we have through our own hard work. If WotC's view from on high is that the broad D20 market is not doing what it should, and that "in general" D20 publishers are now competition rather than allies, I would hope that they could recognize the difference between companies who provide quality support and those who "choke the supply chain." I don't get that impression from Charles' comments.

As for the issue of adventures specifically, I find myself in agreement with PatrickLawinger's commments, so I won't beat a dead horse by repeating what's already been said.


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> WotC released 3.5 with so many incremental changes that all mastery of the previous system was out the window.  The release of 3.5 forced every consumer to make the choice: upgrade or don't.  That fractured the "d20 market" into people satisfied with 3.0 and people willing to update to 3.5; it made years worth of work "obsolete" and unappealing to those who updated to 3.5 and forced many publishers to make the jump to supporting the current rules set and selling to the 3.5 players (which was a subset of the total number of people previously purchasing 3.0 and substantially smaller).  WotC's decision to revise the D&D rules in the way that they did was no small event for d20 publishers, even those who made the transition successfully.




If it was such a bad business decision, why the huge changes in M&M2.0?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> If it was such a bad business decision, why the huge changes in M&M2.0?




apples and oranges, M&M2 is not anywhere close to d20 in size and have so many companies dpeendant on that.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 6, 2005)

Same thing on a smaller scale when you consider the number of "Superlink" PDF publications out there already.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Same thing on a smaller scale when you consider the number of "Superlink" PDF publications out there already.





well, the big differnece I've seen is the number of complaints.  A whole bunbchg when 3.5 came out and none when M&M2 came out.  I also have to think that M&M2 is not going to cause the crash D&D 3.5 did.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 6, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> WotC released 3.5 with so many incremental changes that all mastery of the previous system was out the window.  The release of 3.5 forced every consumer to make the choice: upgrade or don't.  That fractured the "d20 market" into people satisfied with 3.0 and people willing to update to 3.5; it made years worth of work "obsolete" and unappealing to those who updated to 3.5 and forced many publishers to make the jump to supporting the current rules set and selling to the 3.5 players (which was a subset of the total number of people previously purchasing 3.0 and substantially smaller).  WotC's decision to revise the D&D rules in the way that they did was no small event for d20 publishers, even those who made the transition successfully.




Please. Anyone who tells you that 3.0 material is useless when used with 3.5 is trying to sell you something. I switched to 3.5 pretty soon after it was released and I still use almost all of my 3.0 books, and still buy many products that were originally released in the 3.0 era (my gaming budget does not allow me to buy all books released all the time, so I often end up buying a title a year or two after it was initially released).


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> well, the big differnece I've seen is the number of complaints.  A whole bunbchg when 3.5 came out and none when M&M2 came out.  I also have to think that M&M2 is not going to cause the crash D&D 3.5 did.



Apples and oranges, M&M2 is not anywhere close to d20 in size and doesn't have so many consumers dependant on that.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges, M&M2 is not anywhere close to d20 in size and doesn't have so many consumers dependant on that.




which is what I said....thanks for agreeing with me


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> which is what I said....thanks for agreeing with me



Hmm, and it was almost verbatim. Imagine that.

Where's that dang sarcasm tag?


----------



## Pramas (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> If it was such a bad business decision, why the huge changes in M&M2.0?




M&M2 is a full on new edition and was marketed as such. It is not a stealth new edition marketed as a revision. And of course we know that the new edition is a risk. Such things always are. If the M&M2 product line doesn't achieve everything we want though, I'm not going to blame it on the M&M Superlink publishers. Second Edition was our decision, just as 3.5 was WotC's. 

Now just be clear, let me add that the current state of the d20 industry is not only due to 3.5. That was indeed a big factor but certainly there were others. The huge numbers of companies chasing the same money with hundreds of hundreds of products, for example, and the dubious quality of many releases. Those issues were of the d20 market's own making and must be accounted for as well. 

As for who planted the d20 seeds, I can tell you precisely: Green Ronin, Atlas Games, and Swords & Sorcery Studios. These were the companies that embraced d20 when it was nothing but an unproven idea. These were the companies that took a financial risk to try something new. These are also companies that know something about the RPG business. There were perfectly good business reasons for Green Ronin to move away from modules as a primary focus going into 2002 and the hundreds of thousands of non-adventure books we've sold certainly bear them out.


----------



## Henry (Oct 6, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> There were perfectly good business reasons for Green Ronin to move away from modules as a primary focus going into 2002 and the hundreds of thousands of non-adventure books we've sold certainly bear them out.




Nice to put a figure on that, by the way. 

(I'm still slightly miffed Glen Cook wouldn't let you guys do more than one supplement, darn it. )


----------



## MerricB (Oct 6, 2005)

I'd far rather have 3.5e than still be with 3e.

To my eyes, the revisions lowered the complexity of the system significantly - I'm looking at monster creation.


----------



## Yair (Oct 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Please. Anyone who tells you that 3.0 material is useless when used with 3.5 is trying to sell you something. I switched to 3.5 pretty soon after it was released and I still use almost all of my 3.0 books, and still buy many products that were originally released in the 3.0 era (my gaming budget does not allow me to buy all books released all the time, so I often end up buying a title a year or two after it was initially released).



Irrelevant. 3.0 sales dropped significantly, the fact that they "shouldn't have" is irrelevant. GR needs to make money, not to be right or to sell *you* products. Publishers were hurt by the transition to 3.5, that's all Nickchick and Parmas are saying [IMNSHO].

I think people are catching flame here needlessly, picking on words and getting insulted and emotional over half-concieved and ill-formed sentences. 
I give this thread another page or two tops before it spontanously combusts.


----------



## Nikchick (Oct 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Please. Anyone who tells you that 3.0 material is useless when used with 3.5 is trying to sell you something. I switched to 3.5 pretty soon after it was released and I still use almost all of my 3.0 books, and still buy many products that were originally released in the 3.0 era (my gaming budget does not allow me to buy all books released all the time, so I often end up buying a title a year or two after it was initially released).




I'm only reporting what I've heard from people: there are people in the market who don't want to make the conversions or look up the changes to use 3.0 books with 3.5 and consider it "obsolete" period.  Of course, they're the same people who would really like it if we could adapt all of our 3.0 books for them, preferably for free.


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> M&M2 is a full on new edition and was marketed as such. It is not a stealth new edition marketed as a revision. And of course we know that the new edition is a risk. Such things always are. If the M&M2 product line doesn't achieve everything we want though, I'm not going to blame it on the M&M Superlink publishers. Second Edition was our decision, just as 3.5 was WotC's.



Semantics. A competitor did something that didn't help your business.

Hey, I've got an idea... maybe they should revise the STL to be as restrictive as Superlink. It sure would be healthier for WotC if they didn't have to worry about competing with sourcebooks, much like there was never a super-prison superlink supplement, or a gadgets superlink supplement.



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> Now just be clear, let me add that the current state of the d20 industry is not only due to 3.5. That was indeed a big factor but certainly there were others. The huge numbers of companies chasing the same money with hundreds of hundreds of products, for example, and the dubious quality of many releases. Those issues were of the d20 market's own making and must be accounted for as well.



So you might almost say, "over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make..."



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> As for who planted the d20 seeds, I can tell you precisely: Green Ronin, Atlas Games, and Swords & Sorcery Studios. These were the companies that embraced d20 when it was nothing but an unproven idea.



Sounds a lot more like sowing the seeds _given_ to you by WotC.


----------



## mearls (Oct 6, 2005)

A few observations:

* I think it's a grave mistake to attribute the downswing in d20 sales with 3.5. The information I've had access to hasn't shown a slide downward that corellated with that event.

Instead, WotC's switch to full color interiors and hard covers, along with the institution of the development team, made it more difficult for d20 companies to produce supplements that could compete with WotC.

By 2003, the adventure market had already dried up save for those few companies that specialize in them. Thus, d20 companies already leaned on supplements, and the changes at WotC hurt them. The gap between a d20 book and a WotC book became cavernous.

In other words, it's a lot harder to see a big difference between Sword & Fist and a book like Quintessential Fighter. Aside from the D&D logo on S&F's cover, the books have the same basic level of production values. But if you put QF next to Complete Fighter, the difference is obvious and enormous.

Furthermore, the introduction of the development team adds a level of refinement and error checking to WotC's RPG department that no other publisher can afford. The development process is by no means perfect, but it's a step forward. As the team gets better and our processes improve, WotC's advantage here will only widen.

* The interesting thing is, if you look at the print market today, everyone is doing licensed games, new games, or supplements for those titles. There really aren't many companies still doing books that you can add into an existing D&D campaign. At the very least, the raw volume of stuff has slowed tremendously. Most of what comes out now is d20-based games or licensed material.

* With all this in mind, most publishers have taken a beating over the past year.

IME, the d20 companies made a number of mistakes since 2000:

* Nobody established a coherent identity early on. In the beginning, the d20 companies were just companies that made D&D compatible adventures. Privateer did the best job of avoiding this, as the IK had a unique, vivid look and a clear identity.

* d20 companies imitate rather than innovate. We had the shift from adventures to supplements. We had the shift from original games to the flood of licenses. Malhavoc dodged this by publishing variant PHBs, new games that were also easy to loot for D&D rules expansions/improvements.

* These shifts pushed d20 companies further and further away from what was supposed to be the core strength of the license - the ability to produce material compatible with D&D. Goodman Games still does well with its DCC line, plus it has the advantage of doing really clever things with the nostalgia angle that help it stand out.

* d20 companies have never been able to work together. The simmering angers, jealousies, and petty rivalries help sour what could be useful and profitable business relationships. We saw the beginnings of this in WW's Sword and Sorcery imprint, and I think that provided a good model for how companies can leverage their individual strengths to produce a stronger whole.

* Finally, and this ties into the point above, none of the print companies understand or utilize the open source nature of the OGL and the d20 SRD. We haven't seen any steady, incremental improvements in the engine. Everyone just reinvents everything all the time. I think the PDF market has the print companies beat here.


----------



## philreed (Oct 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> * d20 companies have never been able to work together. The simmering angers, jealousies, and petty rivalries help sour what could be useful and profitable business relationships.




I don't think _everyone_ falls into this trap. Personally I've had no problem working with other companies and will continue to do so. A win-win scenario that benefits both parties is what I frequently strive for and feel I've happily achieved a number of times.


----------



## Nikchick (Oct 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> * The interesting thing is, if you look at the print market today, everyone is doing licensed games, new games, or supplements for those titles. There really aren't many companies still doing books that you can add into an existing D&D campaign. At the very least, the raw volume of stuff has slowed tremendously. Most of what comes out now is d20-based games or licensed material.




Then what is Charles talking about?  What you've described here seems to describe a marketplace where d20 publishers definitely ARE NOT competing with WotC and trying to do what they "do best" since WotC's not out there doing licensed games and supplements for such.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> * Nobody established a coherent identity early on. In the beginning, the d20 companies were just companies that made D&D compatible adventures. Privateer did the best job of avoiding this, as the IK had a unique, vivid look and a clear identity.




Generalisations are a killer, Mike. You should know that by now. 

I think there were some clear identities formed in the beginning (I'm particularly looking at Necromancer Games here, but I think there were others); however, many companies later diversified outside these areas. Strangely, I think Malhavoc *didn't* create a clear identity through its products, but had one anyway: "Monte's Company". It only works for Monte Cook. 



> * These shifts pushed d20 companies further and further away from what was supposed to be the core strength of the license - the ability to produce material compatible with D&D. Goodman Games still does well with its DCC line, plus it has the advantage of doing really clever things with the nostalgia angle that help it stand out.




I agree with this, with some additions. I think that you can add that the d20-type games that aren't directly compatible with D&D can be put in the same category as any non-d20 game (e.g. Buffy, RIFTS, Warhammer FRP): they're competing games. Although the similarity in mechanics does reduce the entry requirements, they work on their own, rather than having a synergetic relationship with D&D.

Thus, they succeed almost purely on their own merits. 



> * d20 companies have never been able to work together. The simmering angers, jealousies, and petty rivalries help sour what could be useful and profitable business relationships. We saw the beginnings of this in WW's Sword and Sorcery imprint, and I think that provided a good model for how companies can leverage their individual strengths to produce a stronger whole.




Are you saying that rivalries helped bring down WW's Sword and Sorcery imprint? I've a feeling you may have mistyped. 



> * Finally, and this ties into the point above, none of the print companies understand or utilize the open source nature of the OGL and the d20 SRD. We haven't seen any steady, incremental improvements in the engine. Everyone just reinvents everything all the time. I think the PDF market has the print companies beat here.




I think this is almost entirely true - I seem to remember the Cry Havoc mass combat system being reprinted in an Advanced GMG or similar product - but it is mostly right. Added to the wonderful fact of "crippled OGC", I'm not sure the innovations can get out, anyway. I can think of a few early Malhavoc products where much of the material was (allegedly) closed content. (I haven't been looking at later releases so much).

Cheers!


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 6, 2005)

AFAIC, I don't care what Charles Ryan said on his company's messageboards. He could have talked about "poo-pooing on the enemy" [not a real quote] for all I care.

All I care about is getting new adventures, and adventures coming from WotC is fine and dandy for me (especially in this day and age of piss-poor distribution in the RPG business).


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Oct 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I don't think _everyone_ falls into this trap. Personally I've had no problem working with other companies and will continue to do so. A win-win scenario that benefits both parties is what I frequently strive for and feel I've happily achieved a number of times.




An additional complication is dimwits and slackers like me.  I'm an admierer of Phil's work and the work of the guys over at Indie Press Revolution. I made an abortive attempt to cross-promote and do as Mike Mearls suggested and work with a company that I'll leave nameless for now.  The problem is that some of the d20 guys like Phil do this for a living.  I do it for a hobby.  If my next product (yes, we're working on it) takes two years I don't care.  Compare that with Phil.  It'd be moronic for us to try to work together.  He'd pound out his stuff in a week, while I have no trouble putting stuff on the back burner for months if I feel it would interfere with my real job or my family.  

So not only does a d20 publisher have to get a sense of the other d20 company, they have to hold that independant company to a schedule.  That's practically impossible because there's no way to do that other than with guilt and hope.


----------



## mearls (Oct 6, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> Then what is Charles talking about?  What you've described here seems to describe a marketplace where d20 publishers definitely ARE NOT competing with WotC and trying to do what they "do best" since WotC's not out there doing licensed games and supplements for such.




I can't speak for Charles, but I think his point is that d20 companies that release core rulebooks (whether for homegrown or licensed settings) in essence compete with WotC by offering a competing system, even if it's d20-based. If a game is too far from core D&D to be completely compatible, then it competes with D&D.

I think it's more a case that such books run counter to d20's strength. If you're using d20, it makes sense to make things as compatible as possible. The strength of d20 is that D&D players can quickly and easily pick up your book and add it to their games.

I think AU is a good example of a game that does that. It's a new game, but whole swathes of it are easy to drop into D&D (classes, races) and the new bits offer alternatives to D&D (the spell system, item creation). IME, most people who use AU/AE break it into smaller pieces that they add to their D&D games.

Games like M&M and Spycraft are, IMO, exceptions, since they're not fantasy. Both build on what D&D players already know and then expand/shift the rules to fit their styles. And both avoid competing with WotC directly, so there's more flexibility there. You're using d20 to attract D&D players to a non-fantasy game. Few gamers assume that Spycraft should have rules they can directly port to their ongoing D&D game.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 6, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> Then what is Charles talking about?  What you've described here seems to describe a marketplace where d20 publishers definitely ARE NOT competing with WotC and trying to do what they "do best" since WotC's not out there doing licensed games and supplements for such.




I think that's the state of the marketplace today, and Charles is more looking at the state of the marketplace leading up to today. (That massive lead-time for products at Wizards is no doubt contributing here).

Consider the state of the d20 industry a year ago and then compare it to Charles' comments. During the past year and a bit, I think the successful d20 System publishers have been transitioning to a state where they're not competing directly with Wizards, and one of the major niches they've been exploring have been licensed settings and supplements for those settings. In other words, games and support for those games that have no direct links to D&D, no different to Buffy, RIFTS, Hero or any one of another non-d20 games. The only link is in the basis of the system.

Certainly, for the first three years or more, there were many d20 publishers competing *directly* with Wizards.

So, the decision to make new adventures was made a year ago, and the reasoning Charles gives is based primarily on the state of the industry then. 

(I still think Charles underestimates the problems with getting d20 System adventures to distributors, though.)

Cheers!


----------



## mearls (Oct 6, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Are you saying that rivalries helped bring down WW's Sword and Sorcery imprint? I've a feeling you may have mistyped.




Yeah, that definitely didn't happen. S&S is a great example of each company's strengths mixing together to make a stronger whole. WW has good marketing and ties to both mass market and hobby distribution. Malhavoc and Necro each has a good, separate identity that stakes out separate ends of the market.

I think FDP was hurt in that they had simply didn't have a niche to carve out between those two other companies. But I wonder if a company that focused on d20 Modern, or one that led off with a d20 RPG and supporting material for it, would've been a good third partner.


----------



## Nikchick (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Semantics. A competitor did something that didn't help your business.
> 
> Hey, I've got an idea... maybe they should revise the STL to be as restrictive as Superlink. It sure would be healthier for WotC if they didn't have to worry about competing with sourcebooks, much like there was never a super-prison superlink supplement, or a gadgets superlink supplement.




Wow, it sure sounds like you have some issues with M&M Superlink. Are you trying to suggest that M&M Superlink doesn't allow sourcebooks? That's utterly untrue. Or are you objecting to the idea that there is even the mildest of approvals processes?  I can't tell what your issue with M&M Superlink is exactly.

In all seriousness, I would not be surprised in the least if WotC adopted a much more restrictive policy for the STL in the future.  They've already revised the license to be more restrictive than it was when first launched (e.g. morals clause).  IF 4th edition D&D ends up being open (and I think even that much is questionable) I would be shocked if WotC didn't further restrict the license where it could, especially if they really are concerned that they're being forced to compete with too many d20 publishers producing similar products.  What they do with their business is their business.  There was nothing in the OGL/STL that forbade people from doing whatever they wanted with the material, right down to completely recreating the system and going head to head with WotC on anything from adventures to core books; if WotC decides they don't want to allow certain types of products, they're certainly in their rights to add restrictions so they can end up with a program more to their liking.




			
				Uder said:
			
		

> Sounds a lot more like sowing the seeds _given_ to you by WotC.




Right, WotC _gave_ the OGL and the D20 license to whoever would pick it up and run with it.  And Atlas Games, Green Ronin, and Sword & Sorcery _GAVE_ the program legitimacy by accepting what WotC offered and making use of it.  It's a two-way street, Uder.  Companies that made their name in d20 owe their beginnings to the project, but WotC owes a portion of the success of d20 to those companies as well!  If no one had picked up the system and run with it, we never would have made it past the rampant speculation that d20 was all "just a trick" that somehow WotC was going to use the program to drive their competition out of business, yadda, yadda.  Even a full year into d20 there were loud nay-sayers who repeated this inspite of all the evidence to the contrary.  If those early companies had not signed on, or had joined the chorus and strongly repeated the paranoia that was running rampant then, D20 could have been nothing more than an interesting idea that never amounted to anything.  Its success was not a given.  Yes, the seeds were the start, but seeds alone are just seeds.

WotC doesn't pay my salary, I do.  They don't owe me a living, I must make that living on my own, regardless of what they may or may not have offered me to start with five years ago. Speaking of making my living, I'm not going to bother posting any more in this thread.  I have far too much work to do to spend time going back and forth with people intent on responding to me with hostility whenever I open my mouth.


----------



## philreed (Oct 6, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> Wow, it sure sounds like you have some issues with M&M Superlink. Are you trying to suggest that M&M Superlink doesn't allow sourcebooks? That's utterly untrue. Or are you objecting to the idea that there is even the mildest of approvals processes?  I can't tell what your issue with M&M Superlink is exactly.




My personal experience with the M&M Superlink license is that it's easy to follow, very easy to work with the approvals process (and those running the process), and the license has value. Granted I've only produced 8 M&M Superlink PDFs but I feel that's a large enough number of products that I have a good idea of how the approval process and the license works.

In fact, I wish WotC had a similar process for the D20 System license. It would cut down on a lot of the gross mistakes that continue to happen to this day.

I cannot see how anyone would be upset with the M&M Superlink license.


----------



## MacMathan (Oct 6, 2005)

All I can say is kudos to Mr. Ryan for responding to this thread despite itself. 

As far as why WoTC has not entered the Ennies lately I think this thread has pretty much given the answer. They have very little to gain from supporting the Ennies.


----------



## Uder (Oct 6, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> Wow, it sure sounds like you have some issues with M&M Superlink.



None really. I just thought Chris' comments were somewhat hypocritical, considering M&M1E had a shorter lifespan and a more restrictive license than D&D3E.



			
				Nikchick said:
			
		

> I have far too much work to do to spend time going back and forth with people intent on responding to me with hostility whenever I open my mouth.



I don't see much hostility, just words on a screen. On the internet, tone is almost entirely in the perception of the reader. (Maybe having a flame-head scowl-jowled troll for an avatar doesn't help...)

_Edit: if that last bit doesn't make sense, it's because I changed my avatar for this very reason_

There _does_ seem to be some disconnect on what's good for gamers and what's good for game designers though.


----------



## delericho (Oct 6, 2005)

I'm inclined to think that the sluggishness of the d20 market has more to do with the volume of currently-available material than the lack of companies doing adventures.

I have shelves bowing under the weight of d20 books. I have a half-dozen boxes containing yet more roleplaying books, and I have at least one pile of books tucked away in a storage closet out of the way. I will never again make use of a large proportion of these books. Quite simply, I do not need to ever again buy a d20 book, without ever having to fear that I'll run out of material to use.

As a consequence of this, I have become rather more picky in what I buy. In fact, I essentially no longer even look at a book that isn't from Green Ronin, Malhavoc or, of course, Wizards. There are two exceptions: I'm interested in the Babylon 5 line from Mongoose (but haven't actually bought anything in months), and will look at the occasional product I see recommended here. I'm aware that this means I'm missing some real gems, but I don't have a lot of time to seek out good products, nor any huge incentive to do so, and I don't have a FLGS where I can browse such things at leisure (sadly, following a house move   )

The one area where I am interested in new product are 'disposable' items like adventure modules. However, even here, an adventure would have to have some sort of hook to interest me, as I subscribe to Dungeon, and so again have more material than I will ever use.

I don't know how typical I am of the consumers in the d20 market. However, given the size of the market, if even a small number of people are in the same position, that could have a significant effect on the whole, especially with so many small companies competing for the same small pool of customers.

(As regards Charles Ryan's comments, I'll say only this: I am very interested to hear more about this 'long term solution' that Wizards are working on.)


----------



## Staffan (Oct 6, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Or, y'know, blowing it on cocaine. I don't know what the other designers do, but I can't resist a good hit of the C.



Paging Thayan Knight... Thayan Knight, please pick up the white courtesy phone.


----------



## philreed (Oct 6, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> None really. I just thought Chris' comments were somewhat hypocritical, considering M&M1E had a shorter lifespan and a more restrictive license than D&D3E.




Did it? 

3.0 came out in August 2000. 3.5 in July 2003. That's 35 months.

M&M1e came out in November or December 2002. 2e in October 2005. Isn't that also about 35 months?


----------



## Squire James (Oct 6, 2005)

The first post was perhaps a bit too much like a WoTC commercial (where claiming to be the best is basically required), but mostly I agree with him.  A company who releases the 2nd or 3rd best product in every category is the best, if all the "number 1's" are different companies.  All this is opinion, of course, and I think people pick other peoples' words apart way too much these days.


----------



## Uder (Oct 7, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Did it?
> 
> 3.0 came out in August 2000. 3.5 in July 2003. That's 35 months.
> 
> M&M1e came out in November or December 2002. 2e in October 2005. Isn't that also about 35 months?



Well, I stand corrected... your dates push the ends of months and beginnings of months to make up a month or two, and M&M2 was pre-released at GenCon (much like the D&D3E PHB), but I was thinking it was more like a year's difference. Maybe the publishing of M&M1.5:The Errata'd Edition is what skewed my view.

So... what would you say? Is three years too long or not long enough between revisions/new editions? Or is it different depending on whether you're Green Ronin or WotC?


----------



## Ed Cha (Oct 7, 2005)

I haven't read this entire thread, but I still want to put my two cents in!   

I think it would be great if WoTC somehow sponsored a few good adventure-publishing companies. You know, get their products on the shelves of stores and such and make it a profitable venture for them. For example, it could be like a WoTC seal of approval and these select publishers could be on WoTC's order list available to retailers. These products would be published and financed by the companies, not WoTC, so there's no financial risk to WoTC. Adventures help the sales of other books. I think it's a win-win situation.   

Stores seem to focus on ordering WoTC, then some major d20 companies, then a smattering of the smaller companies, and then little, or virtually no, indie stuff. Adventures then sell a fraction of what sourcebooks and such sell. So imagine a small company, like my own, publishing adventures. It would sell a fraction of a fraction of a fraction! 

Don't get me wrong, I broke four digits in sales for *The Hamlet of Thumble*, but barely and that's just not enough.


----------



## Corinth (Oct 7, 2005)

I'd be satifised if WOTC would just recommend third-party products that fill demands put forth by the less-than-informed userbase.  I'd also like it if WOTC folks would come out and say in print what's said online regularly; some face-to-face honestly with the folks who either can't or won't take off the blinders WRT third-party products would be good for all concerned.


----------



## Ed Cha (Oct 7, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I'm an admierer of... the work of the guys over at Indie Press Revolution.




Thank you, BiggusGeekus, for the mention! I'm glad *Indie Press Revolution* is starting to get noticed! We are trying our best to get great product out there directly to customers... and now *retailers*! 

It is not an easy job. We are trying to get retailers to order from us, but many just stick to WoTC and then a few of the major d20 publishers. WoTC, as pointed out earlier, has it all really. 

I do want to point out that the statement Charles Ryan made about hard-cover quality is not _entirely_ true. While _overall_ WoTC may produce the best hard-covers, I know that *Denizens of Avadnu* has probably the highest production quality ever seen in the industry. There is so much color in this book that it almost screams at you! And the content KICKS ASS! It is really better than any monster book out there. 

That said, it still only sold a tiny fraction of what the most minor WoTC supplement sold.


----------



## Ed Cha (Oct 7, 2005)

Oh, and I just want to add that I'm SURE a lot of publishers would give a good chunk of the sale of any adventure they published (and financed) under the WoTC umbrella to WoTC. I know I would. It's a totally different sales channel.


----------



## philreed (Oct 7, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Well, I stand corrected... your dates push the ends of months and beginnings of months to make up a month or two, and M&M2 was pre-released at GenCon (much like the D&D3E PHB), but I was thinking it was more like a year's difference. Maybe the publishing of M&M1.5:The Errata'd Edition is what skewed my view.




I'm just going based on when I remember seeing/buying the products (which I know was very, very close to the actual release dates).

And as to printings, I'm fairly confident that the Player's Handbook was printed at least once between its release and the 3.5 release. So that really isn't a significant measurement of time.

It's very easy for dates to blur together for all of us. At least, I know it happens to me quite frequently.


----------



## Pramas (Oct 7, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Well, I stand corrected... your dates push the ends of months and beginnings of months to make up a month or two, and M&M2 was pre-released at GenCon (much like the D&D3E PHB), but I was thinking it was more like a year's difference. Maybe the publishing of M&M1.5:The Errata'd Edition is what skewed my view.




For those who might not know, there was no such thing as the "M&M1.5:The Errata'd Edition." We sold out of the M&M core rulebook and had to reprint. When we did so, we corrected the known errata. We also gave the errata away for free and even printed it in the M&M Annual and we were perfectly up front about what the reprint was. It was never advertised or marketed as M&M1.5. It was a reprint that fixed errata, something so standard in the RPG industry I'm not even sure why it merits comment. 



> So... what would you say? Is three years too long or not long enough between revisions/new editions? Or is it different depending on whether you're Green Ronin or WotC?




There is no magic formula. It depends on the game, the state of the fanbase, and the scope of the changes. There is also a big difference between a revision and the new edition. You can call that semantics but that is the heart of the issue. You have to be up front with the fans as to what is going on and why. 

I was not at WotC when they released 3.5, so I can't tell you if what happened with 3.5 was intentional or not. I can tell you, as will any honest publisher working in that era, that 3.5 had a negative impact on the d20 market.


----------



## wakedown (Oct 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I was not at WotC when they released 3.5, so I can't tell you if what happened with 3.5 was intentional or not. I can tell you, as will any honest publisher working in that era, that 3.5 had a negative impact on the d20 market.




I'm just a consumer of all these products.  When 3.0 came out, my group looked at the books, shook our heads and went home and played 2nd Edition.  Somehow Tome & Blood didn't make us feel any more impressed than the 2nd Ed Complete Wizard Handbook did.

When 3.5 came out, we "felt" different.  The WOTC books just seemed better.  Cleaner, richer, fuller.  Folks may hate to admit it, but the hard covers, the distribution of artwork... it somehow added up.  We bit on the bait and moved away from 2nd Ed at last.

This opened the door for us to get interested in AEG, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman, etc.    

The thing my group has been most interested in is books (adventures, settings, etc) that make the rules we were then working to master "flex".  Show me scenarios where the monsters from MM1&2, the new classes, the skill system, the feats, the new spells all work together in harmony.  These we gladly buy from the other publishers.

I feel like there's a lot of material which is "hole-filler".  As in - the information from WOTC is "light" on transmutation, necromancy, drow, devils, cavaliers - and to fill this single hole, an entire book pops up.  My "need" was maybe 2-4 pages, but here's 100+ pages.  My usual response - I'll use Google and find the 2-4 pages I need or Dragon will come along with a timely article.  Once or twice, I made an impulse buy (i.e. Complete Book of Familiars) if something was top of mind while I perused through our local store and I was having trouble finding the info online.  Lately I've stopped these impulse buys as the Internet is now saturated with pretty much anything I need.

I can't speak for everyone, but 3.5 is the catalyst for the modules/settings I've bought from Goodman, Necromancer, AEG, etc.


----------



## mearls (Oct 7, 2005)

wakedown said:
			
		

> I feel like there's a lot of material which is "hole-filler".  As in - the information from WOTC is "light" on transmutation, necromancy, drow, devils, cavaliers - and to fill this single hole, an entire book pops up.  My "need" was maybe 2-4 pages, but here's 100+ pages.




This sentence pretty much summarizes my frustration wtih d20 material as both a customer and a freelance designer. There were many times I had to design to an outline where 3 pages, not 10, was more than enough to cover something.

I think this is the strength of PDFs - you can give a topic as much space as it needs, not the amount dictated by the economics of printing a book. This is a big challenge facing print d20 publishers, IMO.


----------



## scourger (Oct 7, 2005)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Third, the reason that many 3rd party companies focus on other material is that for the same effort as creating an adventure, other supplement material can make you more money and sell more books.
> 
> Notice my 3rd point. It isn't that adventures DO NOT make money, it is simply the fact that other material makes MORE money for the SAME effort. If you are running a business and employing people full-time (like Mongoose and Green Ronin as two examples), you have an obligation to your employees (and probably your family as well) to focus on the products that are going to earn more money. Notice that both of these companies are publishing (or planning to publish) adventure material, it simply isn't the main focus of either. I am sure people are going to argue with the idea of feeling obligated to earn as much money as possible, run a business and employ people dependant on your business for the $ to feed their families (not just your own) and you might have a different perspective.
> 
> ...


----------



## scourger (Oct 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I can't speak for Charles, but I think his point is that d20 companies that release core rulebooks (whether for homegrown or licensed settings) in essence compete with WotC by offering a competing system, even if it's d20-based. If a game is too far from core D&D to be completely compatible, then it competes with D&D.
> 
> I think it's more a case that such books run counter to d20's strength. If you're using d20, it makes sense to make things as compatible as possible. The strength of d20 is that D&D players can quickly and easily pick up your book and add it to their games.




Exactly.  I've already undertaken to learn 1,000+ pages for the core d20 (D&D) rules.  A supplemental product should be completely portable to the kind of game I want to run.  A bunch of weird variant rules that make an effectively new game won't attract me at all to the product(s).  A useful d20 product uses the system as much as possible with as few changes as possible to appeal to as many users as possible.  

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to learn a bunch of new stuff unless it is really simple and really adds to the game.  It's already complicated enough (almost too complicated).  Don't try to compete with D&D--work with it.


----------



## Uder (Oct 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I was not at WotC when they released 3.5, so I can't tell you if what happened with 3.5 was intentional or not.



I think they meant to release it. Unless you're implying something else.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 7, 2005)

Charles Ryan said:
			
		

> As many people on these boards know, when third edition and the d20 License launched, we thought a lot of third parties would see adventures for D&D as a great opportunity. WotC published a spate of them early on (the adventure path, Return to the Temple) to sort of get the ball rolling, but after that we left the category to the third-party publishers.



I think that it is important to note here that one of the principle reasons given for the OGL was that doing adventures just did not make adequate returns for the investments. It is also important to note that the printing costs per book for adventures, for large companies such as WotC is actually often less than it is for smaller publishers. This is because WotC can have many more copies printed at a time, and thus get bulk discounts that smaller publishers cannot.


			
				Charles Ryan said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else). As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)



No real surprise here. Publishing adventures gives less returns overall than other types of source books.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> * I think it's a grave mistake to attribute the downswing in d20 sales with 3.5. The information I've had access to hasn't shown a slide downward that corellated with that event.



Actually, IMO, the glut of 3.0 products on the market at the time caused a downswing, which led to 3.5 (2 years earlier than originally planned), which led to another downswing (at least for the remainder of the year in which it was released). 



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> * Finally, and this ties into the point above, none of the print companies understand or utilize the open source nature of the OGL and the d20 SRD. We haven't seen any steady, incremental improvements in the engine. Everyone just reinvents everything all the time. I think the PDF market has the print companies beat here.



The problem here is two-fold (or maybe three-fold). First off, I think that many companies are fighting being turned into consumers as opposed to creators. They are already paying authors to write products, they don't want to support their competitors by purchasing their products just to be able to complete their own.

Secondly, without a central repository for the developers/authors, there are no "incremental improvements". Notice that the only time that the SRD has been updated is when WotC released 3.5 and/or when they released information from other core products (notice that there are a LOT of WotC products that are not under the OGL, or had portions of their content released under the OGL). There is also no way for anybody else to update or add to the SRD. Without that ability, there is no way for "incremental improvements" to become "official". To add to this, many times several different companies would actually be doing paralell development on similar products. 

Finally, and this ties into the part about the central repository, open source is about shared development, and freely allowing changes/modifications to the users. In the computer industry, companies based upon open source make their profits through services surrounding the product, not the actual product itself. This is impossible to do within a publishing business model, and thus is a major issue of attempting any sort of comparison of a GPL business model with an OGL business model. 

I did a post not too long ago where I stated that I thought that the OGL had failed in a number of respects (not all, but at least some). The lack of adventures (one of the reasons given for the implementation of the OGL) was one. Well, it wasn't actually a failure of the OGL, just a failure of the reasoning of folks who seriously believed that any company using the OGL was going to concentrate on products that WotC didn't want to do themselves (yes, there are a few exceptions). A second big failure of the OGL was what I mentioned above about the lack of central repository.


			
				mearls said:
			
		

> I can't speak for Charles, but I think his point is that d20 companies that release core rulebooks (whether for homegrown or licensed settings) in essence compete with WotC by offering a competing system, even if it's d20-based. If a game is too far from core D&D to be completely compatible, then it competes with D&D.
> 
> I think it's more a case that such books run counter to d20's strength.



Umm.. you mean like Iron Heroes, the competing system that you wrote?


			
				philreed said:
			
		

> And as to printings, I'm fairly confident that the Player's Handbook was printed at least once between its release and the 3.5 release. So that really isn't a significant measurement of time.



First printing of 3.0 included a small section at the back that some monsters and stuff. The second printing reprinted a bunch of Q&A from Sage Advice.


			
				Uder said:
			
		

> I think they meant to release it. Unless you're implying something else.



I believe that he was refering to the effect that 3.5 had upon the third party market. In short, it ended up hurting and outright killing a number of companies. To many players just stopped buying 3.0 products after 3.5 came out, and there was too much 3.0 material still left in the distribution channels.


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 7, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> Respect for Pramas, waning...
> 
> Please, tell me who did the napalming of the d20 fields, and who initially planted the seeds? This is more like sharecroppers refusing to rotate their crops and ruining their leasors lands.




When's the last time your crops were napalmed? It's a metaphor (cf Simile).


----------



## Uder (Oct 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> I believe that he was refering to the effect that 3.5 had upon the third party market. In short, it ended up hurting and outright killing a number of companies. To many players just stopped buying 3.0 products after 3.5 came out, and there was too much 3.0 material still left in the distribution channels.



I get that. 

If I remember right (and I have a terrible memory) things were trending down well before 3.5 was even announced. I've always been under the impression that 3.5 was an attempt to reverse that.

The thing is, it reads to me like he's implying that this effect might've been intentional, like there was some kind of conspiracy to rub out the competition. Which is paranoid to say the least. It's much more insulting than anything Charles Ryan said, that's for sure.

Or... it might've just been an unintentional slight on an internet message board. Just about everyone does it now and then. Hmmm, I know I saw one just recently. I just can't remember where...


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 7, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> I think they meant to release it. Unless you're implying something else.




I have a 1st printing of the 3e PHB. The one that produced almost as much errata and clarifications per chapter as *Mythus*. 3.5 was necessary. Wizards had a problem, Wizards had to do something about it, or risk seeing the market collapse as people turned their back on D&D because of all the mistakes.

I remember 3e. Even if you think the basic premise of the design was valid it still had enough mistakes to make it unviable in the long run. Without 3.5 Wizards would be a card game publisher and we'd be posting at RPG Net about the next D&D wannabe from Whoneedsenglishcompositionskills LLC.

How Wizards did it was wrong, but it needed to be done.


----------



## Pramas (Oct 7, 2005)

Uder said:
			
		

> The thing is, it reads to me like he's implying that this effect might've been intentional, like there was some kind of conspiracy to rub out the competition.




No. What I was saying is that I don't know if WotC's intent from the get-go was to essentially produce a new edition or whether that was an unintentional by-product of the design process. I know from my time at WotC that the original 3E plan did not involve a revision in 2003. That was decided on later. So did the folks in charge say, "We really need to do a new edition but there's no way the fanbase will go for it 2003. Let's call it 3.5 and pretend it's more of a revision than a new edition"? Or did the design process start with the goal of a revision and just go too far? I'd say the latter more likely than the former, but either one is possible. 

In any case, several important factors contributed to the decline of the d20 market, as I mentioned before. The upshot of all this is that two years after 3.5 there are maybe a half dozen print publishers still supporting d20 in a meaningful sense. I would not be surprised if even this small number drops next year. If 2002 was the height of the glut, I believe we are approaching the nadir. The Green Ronin d20 strategy in 2004-2005 was to hang tough, keep putting out the quality books we are known for, watch a lot of our competition fade away, and then reap the benefits. Well, here we are, still supporting d20 with new lines like Thieves' World (and product #2 of that line is an adventure no less) and even doing a new d20 Modern setting (Damnation Decade), but we have yet to see the Great d20 Rebound. 

2006 will be an interesting year.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2005)

scourger said:
			
		

> Exactly.  I've already undertaken to learn 1,000+ pages for the core d20 (D&D) rules.  A supplemental product should be completely portable to the kind of game I want to run.  A bunch of weird variant rules that make an effectively new game won't attract me at all to the product(s).  A useful d20 product uses the system as much as possible with as few changes as possible to appeal to as many users as possible.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to learn a bunch of new stuff unless it is really simple and really adds to the game.  It's already complicated enough (almost too complicated).  Don't try to compete with D&D--work with it.




I'd like to second this point of view.  I'm not a developer, and I don't want to be.  I do buy d20 products from time to time, but, only after a great deal of research and knowing exactly what I want.  I'd been stung too many times in 3e buying crap to want to shell out cash for something that lines my catbox.

I've gotten so bad about not wanting to make radical changes to mechanics that I still refuse to even look at psionics.  I know lots of people say glowing things about the XPH, but, in all honesty, why do I want to plow through another couple of hundred pages of rules, when I could simply create a sorcerer with a different spell list, give him some different feats, and call him a psionicist?  Why do I need an entire new ruleset when the one I've got works?

To be quite honest, that's why things like AE, IH, et al don't interest me all that much.  I actually LIKE 3.5 mechanics.  I have no major complaints.  I have no idea if I'm in some tiny minority here, but, really, I think there are a number of gamers like me who don't want to spend the next year or two working out new rules, we just want to game.  Add in a new PrC?  No worries, we can do that.  Add in a new class?  Not a big deal, done it before.  Spend the next few months figuring out a complete rework the spell system into a point based system?  Huh?  What?  No thanks.

I personally think Mr Mearls has hit it quite well.  The d20 crowd seems to be cranking out variant games time and time again and, well, I don't want to play a variant game.  I want to play DnD.  And, judging by the WOTC numbers, I'd say that there are lots of people like me who aren't terribly interested in reinventing the wheel with every new book.  Gimme something I can port directly into my game with a minimum of work and I'll buy it every time.  Gimme something that's going to bite into my very small amount of free time before I can even begin to use it?  I'll pass.

Just a couple of coppers.


----------



## Uder (Oct 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> No. What I was saying is that I don't know if WotC's intent from the get-go was to essentially produce a new edition or whether that was an unintentional by-product of the design process. I know from my time at WotC that the original 3E plan did not involve a revision in 2003. That was decided on later. So did the folks in charge say, "We really need to do a new edition but there's no way the fanbase will go for it 2003. Let's call it 3.5 and pretend it's more of a revision than a new edition"? Or did the design process start with the goal of a revision and just go too far? I'd say the latter more likely than the former, but either one is possible.




Ah. I see. That makes a lot more sense and doesn't sound so paranoid. In your post "what happened" sounded like you were talking about the d20 correction.

Well, as it turned out, their decision was good for this gamer. I don't know about all gamers, or the game industry, but I appreciated the quality of the update, and the support for the game since then.

An aside, and something I haven't seen your company do: One thing I didn't appreciate was companies that tried to obfuscate whether something was 3.0 or 3.5. I've bought 3.0 material since then, but tried to stick with 3.5 (less work). But when something has "Compatible with 3.5" emblazoned across the bottom of the cover, yet still includes rules artifacts from 3.0   Makes me feel like a sucker, and nobody wants to feel like a sucker.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I personally think Mr Mearls has hit it quite well.  The d20 crowd seems to be cranking out variant games time and time again and, well, I don't want to play a variant game.  I want to play DnD.



I'm playing, or interested in playing in the future, five different d20 games, and none of them are called _Dungeons and Dragons_.

What some people consider reinventing the wheel I consider novel approaches that satisfy more of my interests as a gamer.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I'm playing, or interested in playing in the future, five different d20 games, and none of them are called _Dungeons and Dragons_.
> 
> What some people consider reinventing the wheel I consider novel approaches that satisfy more of my interests as a gamer.





And, that's perfectly fine, for you.  However, I would point to WOTC's sales and wonder if you represent the majority or minority of gamers.  I know that there are people who want to take novel approaches.  The fact that these alternative games sell is proof of that.  I also have a pretty good idea that there are a large number of gamers out there who are fairly content with playing DnD and aren't terribly interested (for whatever reason) in other games.  A company which only caters to the alternative games crowd is catering to a fairly small group IMHO.  The number of people who want to play DND outweighs by a fairly large amount the number of people who want ot play Iron Heroes for example.  

It doesn't matter how good your product is, if you don't have a market to sell to.  I think Charles Ryan and Mike Mearls have made a very good point.  The d20 publishers have been cranking out a large number of alternative games of late - the sheer number of licensed products shows that.  That certainly caters to those who are looking for something new.  I'm just not sure how much sense it makes to cater to a much smaller group than to try to sell to a larger market.  If it works, great!  But, really, how many variant d20 systems do we need?  The troubles the d20 publishers are apparently having are not entirely WOTC's fault.  Publishing books for a very small audience guarantees that you don't sell a lot of books.  IMHO, those who are looking for variant games are a much smaller audience than those who wish to continue playing DnD.  Granted, it's quite possible that I'm wrong.

This thread did get me thinking about something.  Charles Ryan's comment about quality of product.  I certainly don't want to argue the merits of his comment, but, a thought occurs.  I'm playing in the World's Largest Dungeon and really loving it.  But, I did have to plunk down a hundred bucks for this book.  What did that get me?  It got me a couple of forums on the AEG site that never see an AEG representative.  It got me a massive thread at En World with some AEG reps popping in from time to time with ideas.  That's about it.  No official errata - only a fan made one.  No official supplements - again only fan made ones.

If I cranked out a hundred bucks for a WOTC product, what kind of support  could I expect?  I'm thinking considerably more than what I got from AEG.  Errata at the very least.  Web supplements quite probably.  An art gallery quite likely.  Look at the recent Undermountain support and I think you'll see what I mean.

So, is it unfair to say that WOTC produces the best products?  I don't know.  I do know that WOTC certainly supports their products to a very great degree.  When we talk about this or that book, I don't think that the after support can be ignored.  If book X is the greatest thing since sliced bread but gets absolutely no added support, does that make it better, in the end, than a book which is perhaps not as good, but is fully errata'd, has a ready made adventure or two, has a couple of extra goodies added and will likely see official (or at least company supported unofficial) support for the next few years?


----------



## amethal (Oct 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> The upshot of all this is that two years after 3.5 there are maybe a half dozen print publishers still supporting d20 in a meaningful sense. I would not be surprised if even this small number drops next year.



From my own, purely selfish viewpoint, I am glad there are only half a dozen print publishers left.

Assuming we are thinking of the same half dozen, my respect for each of those companies - especially Green Ronin - has grown considerably this year as they have all produced very interesting and/or high quality products. I'd be sorry to lose any of them.

We don't have "lesser" companies clogging up the print market and in some cases giving the d20 industry as a whole a bad name.

On the other hand, it feels like there are hundreds of companies out there producing PDFs. These products are cheap, concise, have no delivery costs and don't take up any shelf space. I buy loads of them, and I don't care if some of them turn out not to be what I wanted - I can afford to waste a couple of dollars every now and then, and it makes the real gems even more satisfying.

2005 has been a great year for d20 / OGL products. I can't wait to see what's coming out in 2006.


----------



## philreed (Oct 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think this is the strength of PDFs - you can give a topic as much space as it needs, not the amount dictated by the economics of printing a book. This is a big challenge facing print d20 publishers, IMO.




And this is primarily the model I've built my work on. The ability to produce 4, 5, 6, or 50 pages on a specific subject -- and then properly label the work -- is most definitely the single greatest strength of the PDF market. Unfortunately, a number of people still feel that they would be better off buying 100 or 200 page products even if all they want is a short section of that product.

That said, I do see gradual shifts in attitude as people begin to understand _why_ I produce such short PDFs.

It's nice to see that someone from WotC understands how PDFs can best be used.


----------



## Numion (Oct 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Please. Anyone who tells you that 3.0 material is useless when used with 3.5 is trying to sell you something. I switched to 3.5 pretty soon after it was released and I still use almost all of my 3.0 books, and still buy many products that were originally released in the 3.0 era (my gaming budget does not allow me to buy all books released all the time, so I often end up buying a title a year or two after it was initially released).




I agree. It even works both ways - I never switched to 3.5, and I still constantly use 3.5 Dungeon adventures and WotC sourcebooks. All the numbers might not be correct, but the things still mean the same. Believe it or not, 3.0 and 3.5 rangers can co-exist


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> 2006 will be an interesting year.



The first thing that flashed through my mind upon reading that was the ancient chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". Was that what you meant?


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Oct 7, 2005)

On the WOTC and the Ennies stuff...

I belive, about 2 years ago, I remember someone (may have been someone at wotc or not, after 2 years i dont remember clearly) telling me that the reason they dont enter the Ennies is the following.

WOTC is "supposed" to be the best of the best when it comes to D&D and RPG games. Top of the line. WOTC has far more resources to put into a product then any 3rd party developer. IT could be considered "unfair" for them to enter, because their increased resources gives them an edge and "skews" the results.

On the OTHER hand, if they were to lose, it would be a huge blow to WOTC and an ebarassment. While they're supposed to be the top of the line, the best of the best, THE primary brand that everyone associates with, having a clear winner in a 3rd party publisher would be embarassing for the company. 

To comment on my own, WOTC doesnt NEED the Ennies to claim that D&D is the best RPG in the world. Quite frankly, it is. It has the longest/biggest market reach/recognition, its spawned entire cults and gamer cultures. And its a part of mainstream pop media. Something no 3rd party company has achieved yet. D&D is on par with Starwars and Comic Book superheroes in terms of recognition. Nearly everyone has HEARD about D&D even if to them its just "that game geeks play".

They have nothing to gain by entering the Ennies, and a lot to lose. Being able to say "Ennies winner 2005" on one of their products means nothing in the world wide market......yet.

However, each year the Ennies grows and matures. Each year many 3rd party companies also grow and mature. When it comes to pop culture, White Wolf would come second in terms of recognition (IMO). Perhaps, maybe, 5 or 10 years from today, some of our favorite 3rd party publishers (Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavor Press, etc etc etc) will reach some sort of plateu were they get noticed BEYOND Gencon, beyond any gamer society and enter mainstream media.

When these companies (and the Ennies) grow to become known enough, worldwide that they could have an effect on WOTC sales, maybe WOTC will change its mind.

And to close, of all the companies listed here and above, I belive Green Ronin has the BEST chance to breach that barrier of pop culture Icon. Mutants and Masterminds is keyed to one of the biggest pop culture themes in the world....comic books and super heroes. If by some chance GR managed to snag a Marvel or DC license...they would slowly climb the steps to reach that barrier. But then again, what the hell do i know.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Actually, IMO, the glut of 2.0 products on the market at the time caused a downswing, which led to 3.5 (2 years earlier than originally planned), which led to another downswing (at least for the remainder of the year in which it was released).




Just checking, did you mean to write "3.0" or was the channels choked with 2nd ed stuff? That makes sense, to me, but 2e material still i circulation doesn't and then I would like to know more, so I'm just asking to get the point clarified.

Cheers!

/M


----------



## Numion (Oct 7, 2005)

ENnies reflect quite highly the opinion of ENWorld members. The opinion of ENWorlders does not reflect that highly the opinion of your average D&D player. Hence, ENnies are not that important for WotC. 

They aim to do products to sell to the masses, and that means less innovation and risky ideas than some PDF firm will crank out. However, those innovative ideas are what win seem to please a lot of the folks that end up as ENnie judges. Not high production values and useability in average joes campaign. So I can see why WotC wouldnt obther with the ENnies.


----------



## Belen (Oct 7, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> And Treasures of Freeport.
> 
> Plus I know that there's more Freeport stuff coming. From here it looks pretty well supported.




Again, I do not count PDFs as support.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 7, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Just checking, did you mean to write "3.0" or was the channels choked with 2nd ed stuff? That makes sense, to me, but 2e material still i circulation doesn't and then I would like to know more, so I'm just asking to get the point clarified.



Oops, yeah meant 3.0 - will go back and fix that typo...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Again, I do not count PDFs as support.




Hey, Belen? Please don't take this the wrong way, but...

That sounds like your problem more than that of the companies in question.

If you want to put forth the complaint "Companies don't offer _the kind of support I like_," that would be valid. But claiming there's no support, and then saying, "Oh, I don't count that as support" sort of undermines your position.

The simple truth is, companies who offer PDF support for a line are, well, offering support for the line. It may be true that it's not the _best_ way to support the line. It may be true that they're not reaching all the customers they could. It may be true that a lot of people don't like using PDFs. (Heck, I write PDFs between larger contracts, and I'm still not a huge customer of the PDF market.) All of those are arguable.

But just dismissing them as, essentially, not existing is no more accurate than to say "WotC never published modules," and then when someone points out that they did, saying "Oh, they had blue covers, so they don't count."

Okay, maybe it's not _quite_ that absurd...  But it's on the same continuum.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Again, I do not count PDFs as support.




I'm curious, why not?  If someone is savvy enough to find the d20 publishers and buy from them, surely they are savvy enough to type in the link that's posted in most of the books and find the pdf's.  Granted, I'm not one to buy pdf's typically, I want the book in my greedy little hands, but, I would think that a mess of pdf's for something certainly do count as support.


----------



## Belen (Oct 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> If 2002 was the height of the glut, I believe we are approaching the nadir. The Green Ronin d20 strategy in 2004-2005 was to hang tough, keep putting out the quality books we are known for, watch a lot of our competition fade away, and then reap the benefits. Well, here we are, still supporting d20 with new lines like Thieves' World (and product #2 of that line is an adventure no less) and even doing a new d20 Modern setting (Damnation Decade), but we have yet to see the Great d20 Rebound.
> 
> 2006 will be an interesting year.




I think the PDF market is siphoning off the more experienced gamers.  If you add that to the massive game store closings and the current price of gas, then you will find your reason.  I think that it is safe to assume that a number of the stores that closed probably embraced d20 and ended up with large inventories that that could not move because of the glut.  Those stores that survived probably concentrate on WOTC, WW, and SJG with maybe some WHFRP.

The problem also lies with the fact that GAMA is a joke.  They are not effective in promoting the hobby.  There is no organization that is effective and there needs to be.


----------



## Belen (Oct 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hey, Belen? Please don't take this the wrong way, but...
> 
> That sounds like your problem more than that of the companies in question.
> 
> ...





Not at all.  By and large, Freeport has ceased to exist in the last few years.  Black Sails was never followed up.  PDFs only benefit die hard fans who stuck with the city and I am willing to bet that few did.  PDFs support like 5,000 people...maybe.  For most people, they have moved on to other things and other places.

As a Wizards delegate, I have traveled among the stores in my area.  Out of 10 stores in the triangle, only one carries the Anniversary edition.  Not one store has any other Freeport product.

While GR will start support of the city again, it is more of a relaunch.  That is great to get new customers, but does nothing to really help the existing fanbase because they allowed the city to wither away in the first place.

PDFs are not support.  2 PDF adventures after 2 years is not support.  It is more like table scraps.

Again, I love GR and I buy just about any d20 product they produce.  I even work like a dog to carry around a list of new titles for GR and a few other d20 companies when I make my rounds to the local stores and I strongly suggest that they carry these titles.

However, 3rd party companies have a serious support issue.  They just do not provide a decent level of existing support for their d20 lines.  And I will not go into their lack of marketing.


----------



## Belen (Oct 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm curious, why not?  If someone is savvy enough to find the d20 publishers and buy from them, surely they are savvy enough to type in the link that's posted in most of the books and find the pdf's.  Granted, I'm not one to buy pdf's typically, I want the book in my greedy little hands, but, I would think that a mess of pdf's for something certainly do count as support.




Yet we're not talking about a mess of PDFs.  We're discussing 2 PDF adventures after a 2 year absence.  Even then, GRs website is not very user-friendly when it comes to revealing upcoming products etc, but that is another discussion.


----------



## Psion (Oct 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not at all.  By and large, Freeport has ceased to exist in the last few years.  Black Sails was never followed up.  PDFs only benefit die hard fans who stuck with the city and I am willing to bet that few did.  PDFs support like 5,000 people...maybe.  For most people, they have moved on to other things and other places.




I suspect that if Freeport products were selling 5000 copies each, we would be seeing more print freeport products. If you go below that threshhold, PDF turns out to be the only viable way to support a line without printing and warehousing costs eating your lunch.

Many companies would -- and have -- walked away from such a situation. I think it shows enormous dedication to their product line and their fans that Green Ronin is finding novel ways to still keep the line going despite the current market conditions.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm curious, why not?




Some folks have said that 50% of all gamers do not use the internet.  ENWorld (where PDF's are trumpeted more than maybe anywhere) is at the most 1% of all gamers, if the numbers that have been bandied about are accurate.  The best PDF's sell like the worst hardcovers, and most sell a fraction of that.  I'd wager a guess that 90% of all gamers don't even know that PDF's exist in any meaningful sense.  Support that only reaches a tiny fraction of the market is very close to no support.


----------



## orangefruitbat (Oct 7, 2005)

You describe my situation as well. Too many monster manuals, prestige classes, feats, rules, etc. I can't use both Fields of Blood and Cry Havoc - it's one or the other, but somehow I have both. Quite frankly, new D20 products (or even non-D20 rpgs) are a hard sell right now. I can't use it all and I'm running out of space in my house. I've actually sold off several boxes of stuff.

So what am I buying? Adventures for one (and a subscription to Dungeon). I've had very good success with Necromancer Games (though I haven't picked up anything since Ancient Kingdoms: Mesopetamia). And products that I think are truly exceptional (as opposed to merely good). Iron Heros and Conan made the list - I love Conan for the setting and Iron Heros for the rules. I run both with D20 adventures (suitably adapted). I purchased the Wilderlands box set simply because of it's amazing detail, and Castle Yggsberg because it's by the master (and also a pleasure to read). When it comes out, Ptolus is a maybe, but I like what I've seen so far. I also picked up WFRP 2nd edition, because I was such a big fan of v.1 (though my Enemy Within campaign fizzled  ). Nothing from WOTC since the DMG2 (it was good, but in retrosect, I wouldn't get it again). Possibly Heros of Horror, but I'm still skeptical. And maybe some more miniatures - I love those little guys.





			
				delericho said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to think that the sluggishness of the d20 market has more to
> do with the volume of currently-available material than the lack of companies doing adventures.
> 
> I have shelves bowing under the weight of d20 books. I have a half-dozen boxes containing yet more roleplaying books, and I have at least one pile of books tucked away in a storage closet out of the way. I will never again make use of a large proportion of these books. Quite simply, I do not need to ever again buy a d20 book, without ever having to fear that I'll run out of material to use.
> ...


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter how good your product is, if you don't have a market to sell to.



It's called "creating demand."

Any damn fool can sell ice in Arabia, but it takes talent to sell it in Siberia.

Awhile back Mr. Dancey weighed in with the opinion, echoed here by Mr. Mearls, that publishers "split the market" by offering alternatives to, instead of support for, _Dungeons and Dragons_. It appears to me that the other companies are saying, "Splitting the market is how we sell books and meet the needs of gamers that you've ignored or turned off. Moreover, we're going to offer something that gamers _didn't know they wanted in the first place_ and make it so cool that they can't resist picking it up." Apprently this strategy is successful enough for the companies publishing these alternative fantasy games to keep doing it.

As a business strategy, going straight at your competitors instead of nibbling around the edges can be a good idea. Not everyone wants to buy the same thing, and these other publishers are going after that market, exploiting the wedge of gamers who want something other than _Dungeons and Dragons_ and creating buzz around their product that entices folks to check it out.

Will _D&D_ always be the largest selling name in the business? Probably. Does that mean that the only successful business strategy is to sell product in support of it? I don't think so.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to see a guy in Irkutsk about some ice...


----------



## King of Old School (Oct 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> PDFs support like 5,000 people...maybe.



Do you really mean to imply that 5,000 people is an insignificant subset of the Freeport fanbase (or the fanbase of any non-Wizards line)?  That doesn't jibe with my understanding of industry economics in 2005, where 5,000 is a reasonably successful print run for a supplement not published by the top two companies.

KoOS


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 7, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Awhile back Mr. Dancey weighed in with the opinion, echoed here by Mr. Mearls, that publishers "split the market" by offering alternatives to, instead of support for, _Dungeons and Dragons_.



Which is hilarious since Mr. Mearls helped to split the market with Iron Heroes. 


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> As a business strategy, going straight at your competitors instead of nibbling around the edges can be a good idea. Not everyone wants to buy the same thing, and these other publishers are going after that market, exploiting the wedge of gamers who want something other than _Dungeons and Dragons_ and creating buzz around their product that entices folks to check it out.



Note that this does not apply solely to the d20 market, but to the entire rpg market, as evidenced by GURPS, HERO, RM, HARP, Palladium, the Omni System, Unisystem, etc...


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Will _D&D_ always be the largest selling name in the business? Probably. Does that mean that the only successful business strategy is to sell product in support of it? I don't think so.



Many other companies don't think so either (see response to previous paragrapgh).


----------



## Akrasia (Oct 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Which is hilarious since Mr. Mearls helped to split the market with Iron Heroes.
> ....




Well, to be fair, I suspect that Mike Mearls would consider IH akin to AU/AE -- an alternative PHB that can be used on its own, or 'plundered' for ideas for a 3e D&D game.

(However, if this is true of IH, I don't see why it's not also true for fantasy OGL games like Conan or even C&C.)


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> (However, if this is true of I[ron]H[eroes], I don't see why it's not also true for fantasy OGL games like Conan or even C&C.)



*_PING!_*

So why do Messrs. Mearls and Ryan see this as a bad thing?


----------



## MerricB (Oct 7, 2005)

It's worth considering how well these games fit into the existing framework.

If you replace the PHB with Iron Heroes, does your Monster Manual become obsolete? I suspect not - the power levels are on the same level.

However, can the same be said about Conan?

Cheers!


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 8, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I'd wager a guess that 90% of all gamers don't even know that PDF's exist in any meaningful sense.  Support that only reaches a tiny fraction of the market is very close to no support.



I'd wager a guess that 90% of all games don't even bother looking at non-WotC books in any meanigful sense.  

Adventures are not profitable.  Adventures that can only be bought by a small subset of all potential customers (ie. adventures that are only useful to buyers who own and are using a particular setting or supplement) are likely even less profitable.  Given large financial risk with poor potential profits, adventure supplements aren't viable in print, so complaining that they doesn't exist is fruitless.  What would you rather have, no support whatsoever, or support in pdf?


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 8, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It's worth considering how well these games fit into the existing framework.



Hrrm. There seems to be a fair amount of broken (or at least cracked or chipped) stuff published for _D&D_ even by those publishers writing specifically for the game (and that includes WotC), so I'm not sure that I agree with your premise here.


----------



## Akrasia (Oct 8, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It's worth considering how well these games fit into the existing framework.
> 
> If you replace the PHB with Iron Heroes, does your Monster Manual become obsolete? I suspect not - the power levels are on the same level.
> 
> ...




To answer your question: the same _can_ be said about Conan.  (You will not be able use the CR system anymore, but you can definitely still use the MM.  Of course, 'monsters' are much rarer in Conan.)

Similarly, you can use the MM with C&C.  And probably most other fantasy OGL games.

It might be true that it is slightly easier to use the MM with IH than Conan (simply because IH tries to maintain the usefulness of the CR system) -- but _not_ so much as to place IH in a separate category.


----------



## Wraith Form (Oct 8, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else).



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh, that's rich!   Those WotCs, they're so _funny_!


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Oct 8, 2005)

Edit: Deleted because I don't know how it got into _this_ thread. Guess I should cut back on the cough syrup.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 8, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It's worth considering how well these games fit into the existing framework.
> 
> If you replace the PHB with Iron Heroes, does your Monster Manual become obsolete? I suspect not - the power levels are on the same level.
> 
> ...




As someone who has actually RUN Conan- Id say yes. 

Chuck


----------



## MerricB (Oct 8, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As someone who has actually RUN Conan- Id say yes.




Thanks - that's good to hear. 

Cheers!


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 8, 2005)

Ed Cha said:
			
		

> Thank you, BiggusGeekus, for the mention! I'm glad *Indie Press Revolution* is starting to get noticed! We are trying our best to get great product out there directly to customers... and now *retailers*!
> 
> It is not an easy job. We are trying to get retailers to order from us, but many just stick to WoTC and then a few of the major d20 publishers. WoTC, as pointed out earlier, has it all really.
> 
> ...





There are a few companies out there with high-quality hardcovers....I think the Privateer Press hardcovers fare well against WotC.  They're durable, the art is more consistently of high quality, and they're written very well.

Banshee


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 8, 2005)

This is an interesting topic.  It would be a shame if the discussion had to be curtailed because people couldn't maintain civility.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 8, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> No. What I was saying is that I don't know if WotC's intent from the get-go was to essentially produce a new edition or whether that was an unintentional by-product of the design process. I know from my time at WotC that the original 3E plan did not involve a revision in 2003. That was decided on later. So did the folks in charge say, "We really need to do a new edition but there's no way the fanbase will go for it 2003. Let's call it 3.5 and pretend it's more of a revision than a new edition"? Or did the design process start with the goal of a revision and just go too far? I'd say the latter more likely than the former, but either one is possible.
> 
> In any case, several important factors contributed to the decline of the d20 market, as I mentioned before. The upshot of all this is that two years after 3.5 there are maybe a half dozen print publishers still supporting d20 in a meaningful sense. I would not be surprised if even this small number drops next year. If 2002 was the height of the glut, I believe we are approaching the nadir. The Green Ronin d20 strategy in 2004-2005 was to hang tough, keep putting out the quality books we are known for, watch a lot of our competition fade away, and then reap the benefits. Well, here we are, still supporting d20 with new lines like Thieves' World (and product #2 of that line is an adventure no less) and even doing a new d20 Modern setting (Damnation Decade), but we have yet to see the Great d20 Rebound.
> 
> 2006 will be an interesting year.




Well Chris, not to be a fan-boy or anything, but IMO, Green Ronin is one of the best D20 companies out there.  I've got the Black Company Campaign setting, several of the Mythic Vistas books, and several of the class ones.  I'm very much looking forward to the book coming out with the Black Company magic system adapted to regular D20 gaming.

You guys are on the right track, and Green Ronin is one company I'd be pleased to see stick around with D20.

On that topic, you may want to check your distribution channels in Canada.  Right after Blue Rose came out, my local stores stopped being able to order Green Ronin merchandise.  It's been about two months now since I've seen a Green Ronin book hit my area, which is frustrating.  I ended up needing to order Eternal Rome from EBay, and it's 3 weeks since I paid and it still hasn't arrived.

My regular store told me that Canadian Distributors has ceased supplying Green Ronin.  I don't know if they're just giving me bogus info, or if there's some truth to the statement.

I think there was a definite glut to the D20 market, but several companies....Malhavoc, Green Ronin, Sword & Sorcery Studios, RPG Objects, Fantasy Flight Games (Midnight), and Privateer Press are all companies putting out fantastic work.  Apparently some WotC people may not realize it, but I think there will always be a market for non-WotC sourcebooks.  Ever since 3E came around, WotC appears to have gone somewhat "lowest common denominator".  They have released many interesting books, but they're often so generic that it's frustrating.  And the "cheese" factor, especially in 3.5 is something that I personally find very dissatisfying it.  I don't remember this in older games like Birthright, Planescape, and Dark Sun.  It seems these days that the only companies that offer a solution to that are non-WotC publishers.  Settings like Iron Kingdoms and Midnight help to fill that hole, and alternate rules etc. like Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved etc. help to deal with that.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I find increasingly the "cheese" factor in many WotC books really turns me off.  I don't find myself buying nearly as many anymore.  Probably about 40% of my purchases are WotC, and 60% are from the above-mentioned companies. But I find it very difficult to get my players to make the jump.  Most either don't know about D20 publishers, or are unwilling to buy anything but WotC.

On the topic of adventures.....I do think they're necessary.  However, small adventures are pretty well covered by Dungeon.  What I'd love to see is more large-scale ones, or books with strings of them that can be combined into longer campaigns.  I don't typically purchase many of the individual adventures.....but the big ones, like The Great Modron March and Dead Gods are ones that I've gotten a lot of use out of.

I think that several of the companies (including Green Ronin) that release campaign settings....like for Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, Skull & Bones etc. don't support the products enough afterwards.  Midnight as an example gets lots of supplements.  But there's only been one adventure.  I'd totally be into purchasing other modules for that setting, but nobody seems to feel like producing them.  But as the GM of that game, having adventures makes it easier for me to run the game, which increases the length of time my players will play in that setting, and increases the chance that they'll purchase Midnight supplements, for example.  Though only one GM in the group buys the adventure, the fact that I'm running the game may lead to other sales of the other books in the line.  But all of the companies seem to be in the same boat....poor, overworked GMs don't get any of the love 

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> I have a 1st printing of the 3e PHB. The one that produced almost as much errata and clarifications per chapter as *Mythus*. 3.5 was necessary. Wizards had a problem, Wizards had to do something about it, or risk seeing the market collapse as people turned their back on D&D because of all the mistakes.
> 
> I remember 3e. Even if you think the basic premise of the design was valid it still had enough mistakes to make it unviable in the long run. Without 3.5 Wizards would be a card game publisher and we'd be posting at RPG Net about the next D&D wannabe from Whoneedsenglishcompositionskills LLC.
> 
> How Wizards did it was wrong, but it needed to be done.




I'd tend to disagree.  With a few exceptions where we've used some rules from 3.5, we're still running 3.0, and the game isn't "broken".

WotC created a perceived need and basically forced everyone down that path.  Why they did it is up to conjecture.  They maintain it's because the rules were broken, others of us believe it had as much to do with bumping sales back up.  Who knows what the truth was?  Maybe it lies somewhere in between.

IMO, 3.5 was a step backwards in many ways, but I'm sure many will disagree.  In any case, it went in a direction that I personally didn't like.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 8, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I'm playing, or interested in playing in the future, five different d20 games, and none of them are called _Dungeons and Dragons_.
> 
> What some people consider reinventing the wheel I consider novel approaches that satisfy more of my interests as a gamer.




Bingo.

WotC's idea of what I'm supposed to consider "fun" has diverged significantly from what I find fun.

Some of the variant stuff out there is really cool.  Much of it my players aren't aware of, unfortunately, but usually once I've shown it to them, they "get it".

I still like some WotC stuff.....Heroes of Battle, many of the Eberron books, and some of the FR stuff....but much of it is too vanilla these days.  Everyone has their own poison, I guess.

I don't think that D20 companies are always reinventing the wheel, anyways.  I've seen shared material.  My copy of the Witch's Handbook from Green Ronin uses the ritual rules from Relics & Rituals I, for instance.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I agree. It even works both ways - I never switched to 3.5, and I still constantly use 3.5 Dungeon adventures and WotC sourcebooks. All the numbers might not be correct, but the things still mean the same. Believe it or not, 3.0 and 3.5 rangers can co-exist




This is what I've done as well....my game uses 3.0 rules, but the 3.5 ranger, variant rules from Anger of Angels for celestials, Monte Cook's variant sorcerer, and several of the 3.5 WotC books.....it all works together.

The game hasn't fallen apart at the  hinges, it's feeling more like I want it to, and everyone's having fun....which is the point.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 8, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's why you never see politicians using negative campaigning and washing powders never compare themselves with "another leading brand."  :\




Politicians are a bad example.  They're pretty disreputable folks right off the bat   Many of them aren't that bright.  Book-smart, maybe, but...I *think* negative campaigning is more common in the U.S. than in Canada.  The last major time I saw an example of it here was Kim Campbell vs. Jean Chretien.  Everyone remembers the advertising that made fun of his drooping lip.  Incidentally, she was smoked in that election, and that negative campaigning arguably was one thing that led to the defeat.

That's another topic, and I don't want to get into politics

There's a difference between sales and marketing.  Marketing supports sales, but it's not the same thing.  A company can compare themselves against a competitor.....but insult the competitor, and you usually lose the sale.  It's more effective to sell on one's own strengths, than to insult your competition.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 8, 2005)

....


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2005)

Just a thought about Mr. Ryan's idea that the SRD would grow incrementally.

Is there anything preventing a publisher from creating a document which includes the SRD plus all (or some) of the OGC material that that publisher has created and calling it the ((Publisher's Name)) Appended SRD?  For example, could AEG, which has cranked out a number of rules books, create a website and publish online an ammended SRD which includes all of AEG's OGC material from its various books plus the base d20 SRD?

Is there some legal reason why this can't be done?

If not, it would seem that the d20 publishers have failed somewhat to support the SRD.  The SRD has never moved beyond core DnD and, unless WOTC updates it, quite possibly never will.  But, if d20 publishers started cranking out ammended SRD's for their companies, or even working together with other publishers to create a massive SRD, then we would see the SRD evolve beyond the basic core ruleset.  Since the d20  publishers owe their existence to the SRD, I don't think this is an unfair thing for Mr. Ryan to say.

Granted, if there is some reason a company can't do that, then my idea is totally bogus and please ignore my mindless drivel.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 8, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Granted, if there is some reason a company can't do that, then my idea is totally bogus and please ignore my mindless drivel.




No reason they can't. Lots of reason why they won't.

Main reason being the feeling that they would then be giving their stuff away for free, without any chance of making money on it. And even for stuff that's oop, there could be sometime in the future when it would be convenient NOT to have release a lot of it in a digital [Insert Company Name] SRD.

Sad, but it seems as if it's not gonna happen.

/M


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 8, 2005)

Now *that* is an interesting question, Hussar.  I'm intrigued to see what answers you'll get!

-blarg


----------



## Yair (Oct 8, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is there anything preventing a publisher from creating a document which includes the SRD plus all (or some) of the OGC material that that publisher has created and calling it the ((Publisher's Name)) Appended SRD?  ...
> 
> Is there some legal reason why this can't be done?
> 
> If not, it would seem that the d20 publishers have failed somewhat to support the SRD.  ...  Since the d20  publishers owe their existence to the SRD, I don't think this is an unfair thing for Mr. Ryan to say.



As Meggan said, there is simply no economic incentive to expand the enormous effort and (in the case of a massive cross-publisher "SRD") legal liabilities. d20 publishers are having economic trouble as it is, and have much to lose and little to gain by such an enterprise. 

They don't see supporting the SRD as their responsibility: the SRD was made by WotC for buisness reasons, and they are using it for doing buisness - it is expecting them to do what the OGL doesn't require of them that is "unfair", if WotC wanted them to do something in return for using the OGL it should have put it into the OGL (like the open-programming license requires code to be made public, so could the OGL require SRDs to be made public).

The concept of a massive SRD is actually opposed by many publishers, which believe it will hurt their sales and not help them much. The concept of a publisher-only massive SRD (open only to publishers) is more acceptable, but has its own problems and does not seem economically viable.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 8, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is there anything preventing a publisher from creating a document which includes the SRD plus all (or some) of the OGC material that that publisher has created and calling it the ((Publisher's Name)) Appended SRD?  For example, could AEG, which has cranked out a number of rules books, create a website and publish online an ammended SRD which includes all of AEG's OGC material from its various books plus the base d20 SRD?
> 
> Is there some legal reason why this can't be done?



Nope, no legal reasons preventing it, but as others have stated, a whole lot of other reasons are preventing it.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If not, it would seem that the d20 publishers have failed somewhat to support the SRD.



<insert annoying buzzer sound> Wrong Answer! 
To put it simply, the publishers support the SRD by using it, not by adding to it, or creating their own versions of it. The OGL does not allow them to add to it. As mentioned, they can create their own SRDs, just not update the current one.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The SRD has never moved beyond core DnD and, unless WOTC updates it, quite possibly never will.



That is because the SRD is their property. Nobody CAN update the SRD except WotC. Now, others can create their own SRD's based off the one WotC maintains, but they cannot update it.

In the end you would basically end up with what you currently have (M&M, True20, Arcana Evolved, Iron Hereos, etc..).


----------



## Maggan (Oct 8, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> That is because the SRD is their property. Nobody CAN update the SRD except WotC. Now, others can create their own SRD's based off the one WotC maintains, but they cannot update it.





Out if curiosity, does anyone know if any publisher has asked WotC if they could incorporate their own OGC into the WotC SRD?

/M


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 8, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Out if curiosity, does anyone know if any publisher has asked WotC if they could incorporate their own OGC into the WotC SRD?
> 
> /M




It's not quite the same, but IIRC, some of the mechanics from Mutants & Masterminds (Green Ronin) as well as some from The Game Mechanics was included in the OGC of Unearthed Arcana.

So in the whole of the Open Game material available from WotC, it *does* have some 3rd party material.


----------



## Cam Banks (Oct 8, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> There are a few companies out there with high-quality hardcovers....I think the Privateer Press hardcovers fare well against WotC.  They're durable, the art is more consistently of high quality, and they're written very well.




All of Sovereign Press' hardcover sourcebooks for Dragonlance have been full-color. I think that's pretty rare outside of WOTC. I do think the product line is less spoken of around here because of the license, but those of us who're writing for the books make sure to add in a lot of lootable content.

Of course, it's not OGL lootable content. But still...

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 8, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> It's not quite the same, but IIRC, some of the mechanics from Mutants & Masterminds (Green Ronin) as well as some from The Game Mechanics was included in the OGC of Unearthed Arcana.
> 
> So in the whole of the Open Game material available from WotC, it *does* have some 3rd party material.




I was very pleased to see that. We're all playing in their sandbox and it goes to show that not only we can make some money off their OGC, they can make some money off of ours.

I wish WotC would look into doing a compilation of d20 material released by 3rd parties and turn it into another Unearted Arcana type book. That kind of recipriocity would be a win-win for everyone involved.

joe b.


----------



## Pramas (Oct 8, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> My regular store told me that Canadian Distributors has ceased supplying Green Ronin.  I don't know if they're just giving me bogus info, or if there's some truth to the statement.




The period you mentioned (shortly after the release of Blue Rose) was when we parted ways with the company that used to do our sales and fulfilment. We like to actually get the money for the books we sell; guess we're funny that way. Anyway, after that we made some new deals and started handling sales ourselves but there was a transition period in getting that all worked out. We do currently sell to four Canadian distributors: Lion Rampant, Universal, New Century, and Dynamic. If your local store is still having issues, tell them to drop us a line at our custserv address {custserv [at] greenronin.com}.


----------



## philreed (Oct 8, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> We like to actually get the money for the books we sell; guess we're funny that way.




What? You aren't running a charity?  Ya greedy bastards!


----------



## William Ronald (Oct 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> What? You aren't running a charity?  Ya greedy bastards!




Technically, Vow of Poverty is in a WotC book, the Book of Exalted Deeds.  So, I don't think the good people at Green Ronin have to follow it.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 8, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> It's not quite the same, but IIRC, some of the mechanics from Mutants & Masterminds (Green Ronin) as well as some from The Game Mechanics was included in the OGC of Unearthed Arcana.
> 
> So in the whole of the Open Game material available from WotC, it *does* have some 3rd party material.



Nobody has said that WotC has never used 3rd party OGC. The comment was about whether or not any companies have asked WotC to include their OGC in the SRD. Use of 3rd party OGC in Unearthed Arcana does not count here as none of that OGC has made it into the SRD.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 8, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Nobody has said that WotC has never used 3rd party OGC. The comment was about whether or not any companies have asked WotC to include their OGC in the SRD. Use of 3rd party OGC in Unearthed Arcana does not count here as none of that OGC has made it into the SRD.




That's why I said it's not quite the same.


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 9, 2005)

William Ronald said:
			
		

> Technically, Vow of Poverty is in a WotC book, the Book of Exalted Deeds.  So, I don't think the good people at Green Ronin have to follow it.




More importantly, it isn't OGC.  Green Ronin isn't *allowed* to use Vow of Poverty. 
-blarg


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> No reason they can't. Lots of reason why they won't.
> 
> Main reason being the feeling that they would then be giving their stuff away for free, without any chance of making money on it. And even for stuff that's oop, there could be sometime in the future when it would be convenient NOT to have release a lot of it in a digital [Insert Company Name] SRD.
> 
> ...




Basically, when I've asked about SRD's from companies before, they basically said "WotC can afford to give stuff away for free, we can't". While I understand the sentiment, I think of an SRD as "game support", like 3.5 updates for some of the stuff that won't otherwise be updated, and adventures that may not be as profitable, but advance and build on an earlier product.

For myself, I don't mind buying a book, and a couple of my players might if they enjoyed something, but not all of them will. An SRD would make these games possible for my group, but they "can't" do it because it's not efficient. Meanwhile, I could probably find a pirated copy of the whole thing.


----------



## philreed (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, I could probably find a pirated copy of the whole thing.




Please don't.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Basically, when I've asked about SRD's from companies before, they basically said "WotC can afford to give stuff away for free, we can't". While I understand the sentiment, I think of an SRD as "game support"




See, now that is part of the whole problem. You are looking at an SRD as "game support". Companies are seeing it as "free access to what I am trying to sell you", especially those companies that tend to make their products 100% OGC.

SRD's were never meant to be treated as game support. Such documents are meant for other publishers to use in creating new content, not as a free version of a product.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> For myself, I don't mind buying a book, and a couple of my players might if they enjoyed something, but not all of them will.



And nobody can share a book?


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> An SRD would make these games possible for my group, but they "can't" do it because it's not efficient. Meanwhile, I could probably find a pirated copy of the whole thing.



It is comments like this last one that really galvanizes publishers against free distribution of their works (via an SRD or an OGC Repository, etc..). The "I don't want to pay for it, so you should give it to me for free" mentality.

Now, if companies did begin doing their own SRDs, do you know what would happen? That company would not ever do a product that was 100% OGC ever again. In fact, they would most likely release only the bare minimum into OGC (which would be effectively worthless as it would be the most minimal stat block that could be gotten away with, and not even the name of the (whatever it was) would be open content.

Not only that, but you would see a drastic reduction in release schedules. It takes time and effort to go through a manuscript and to pull out the open content. Time and effort that would otherwise be spent on other products. And once release schedules dropped, so would profits, and then you would see these companies go out of business.

The folks that work at game companies (operative word being "company") want their company to make a profit so that they can do such exotic things as buy groceries and pay their rent.  I don't know if you meant to have your post put across a certain attitude or not, and if you didn't, then I apologize, but the impression that I received in the last part of your post was that the game company "owed" you a bunch of free support. 

And the comment about going and finding a "pirated" copy? I am not gonna comment on that  simply because every time I tried, I ended up lashing out in a manner that would likely get me banned, it got me riled up that much.Any way you look at it, it was not a very nice thing to say.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> An SRD would make these games possible for my group, but they "can't" do it because it's not efficient.




Game companies operate on extremely tight budgets. Budgets that don't include wiggle room for things like paying someone to make a free version of their products.

Also, it doesn't work to make the game any more widespread in a meaningful capacity. I believe the d20 Mecha rules were released in an OGC "SRD" and it hasnt seemed to make the rules any more widespread as near as I can tell. 

Finally, this might come as a shock, but the purpose of the SRD is to help publishers, not allow groups to avoid buying books. 

WOTC can afford to do this because 3rd party publishers don't meaningfully compete with them and any lost sales are (relatively) meaningless to a company of their size. 

For a 3rd party company to do it is a whole different ball game. Since the two groups of people that would make use of a SRD would be 1) companies that DO compete with them in meaningful ways and 2) people who the company would like to buy their books.



> Meanwhile, I could probably find a pirated copy of the whole thing.




Nice.

So if the company won't give it to you, you steal it. 

Chuck


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Nice.
> 
> So if the company won't give it to you, you steal it.
> 
> Chuck



Totally missing the point. I don't buy Grim Tales because there's no SRD for me to share with my online players. I haven't pirated anything, otherwise why would I suggest that such a thing be made? I'd in fact already have it.

The simple fact is, the information is already out there, the fact that the companies won't put it out in a format under their control is the problem.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> See, now that is part of the whole problem. You are looking at an SRD as "game support". Companies are seeing it as "free access to what I am trying to sell you", especially those companies that tend to make their products 100% OGC.
> 
> SRD's were never meant to be treated as game support. Such documents are meant for other publishers to use in creating new content, not as a free version of a product.



So, when WotC said "no need to buy 3.5, you can download the SRD for free." they were lying? It's really only for the publishers? In that case, someone might want to tell WotC, because they foolishly made it available to us peons too.



> And nobody can share a book?



I mainly game online, but even in person it's a pain to not have a resource seperate. Unless you're suggesting I photocopy it? That'd be Wrong.




> It is comments like this last one that really galvanizes publishers against free distribution of their works (via an SRD or an OGC Repository, etc..). The "I don't want to pay for it, so you should give it to me for free" mentality.




Kind of glossed over the part about me BUYING the book if the SRD was there? Possibly you're just replying to someone else and didn't seperate it from my quote.



> Now, if companies did begin doing their own SRDs, do you know what would happen? That company would not ever do a product that was 100% OGC ever again. In fact, they would most likely release only the bare minimum into OGC (which would be effectively worthless as it would be the most minimal stat block that could be gotten away with, and not even the name of the (whatever it was) would be open content.
> 
> Not only that, but you would see a drastic reduction in release schedules. It takes time and effort to go through a manuscript and to pull out the open content. Time and effort that would otherwise be spent on other products. And once release schedules dropped, so would profits, and then you would see these companies go out of business.



You've got companies doing 100% OGC material, companies which say that their sales are mostly in the 3 months after release. Companies that already have PDF's of the same products. It would be quite simple for core rules to be provided in a usable/ no frills format 3-6 months after the release. I'm also not advocating making EVERY product free, just as WotC doesn't add everything to the SRD.

Has the COMPLETE D20 Modern SRD reduced sales of D20 Modern books? WotC does it fine.
Other companies assume it'd be bad, so they don't do it.



> The folks that work at game companies (operative word being "company") want their company to make a profit so that they can do such exotic things as buy groceries and pay their rent.  I don't know if you meant to have your post put across a certain attitude or not, and if you didn't, then I apologize, but the impression that I received in the last part of your post was that the game company "owed" you a bunch of free support.



If the money is that tight, perhaps RPG's shouldn't be their sole business. But, I do appreciate the work they do (for the most part) and don't mind paying the exorbitant prices books get nowadays (again, for the most part).

What I meant was, I expect support for a product, and I have a specific idea of what that support should/would/could be. COmpanies in response tell me they'd go bankrupt for supporting their products in such a manner. "We're too busy making new books to update <blah class> to 3.5", is not the answer I want to hear, and will affect my purchase of future products.



> And the comment about going and finding a "pirated" copy? I am not gonna comment on that  simply because every time I tried, I ended up lashing out in a manner that would likely get me banned, it got me riled up that much.Any way you look at it, it was not a very nice thing to say.



As I mentioned above, I'm not saying I'll use a pirate copy, I'm saying that they're already out there, so decrying "giving it away for free" doesn't work for me, given someone has already provided a complete copy.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> What I meant was, I expect support for a product




Why?  If you buy a novel, you don't get any support.  If you buy a CRPG, you might get a  patch (and most RPGs will give you erratta -- same thing).  If you go to a movie, you don't get a free video tape of the movie on the way out.  What makes you think/feel that an RPG publisher owes you anything beyond the book you just paid for?  Web enhancements, free adventures, erratta - -these are all bennies for which to be appreciative, not birthrights.  If you don't think the product is worth the price you paid for it without any 'support' (and more than likely, you'd be wrong from a purely economical standpoint), don't purchase further products from the company.  Don't demand that they essentially give you their next product for free.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Why?  If you buy a novel, you don't get any support.  If you buy a CRPG, you might get a  patch (and most RPGs will give you erratta -- same thing).  If you go to a movie, you don't get a free video tape of the movie on the way out.  What makes you think/feel that an RPG publisher owes you anything beyond the book you just paid for?  Web enhancements, free adventures, erratta - -these are all bennies for which to be appreciative, not birthrights.  If you don't think the product is worth the price you paid for it without any 'support' (and more than likely, you'd be wrong from a purely economical standpoint), don't purchase further products from the company.  Don't demand that they essentially give you their next product for free.



We obviously have different views of the RPG industry, and what a continueing gameline is. I'm not buying a single product for the most part, I'm buying something more. And, I think my point was pretty clear that the lack of support will affect my buying decisions. I don't think adventures should be free, but making a product that supports your line, but doesn't make as much money as something else (say, a sourcebook unrelated) is sometimes better overall.

I never demanded anything, this is a discussion on a discussion forum. I'm not screaming that the publishers are evil capitalists for not giving me free stuff they never promised me. I'm saying the lack of an SRD for some of the Alternate Core Systems is a factor in my buying decision. Continueing support is also a factor in my purchasing decisions.

To forestall the next step in most of these discussions, telling me that the publishers don't want me as a customer isn't the best answer for a consumer market. I'm not the only person citing a lack of support for purchasing decisions.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Nope, no legal reasons preventing it, but as others have stated, a whole lot of other reasons are preventing it.
> 
> 
> <insert annoying buzzer sound> Wrong Answer!
> ...




If that's the case, then WotC can't complain about the fact that other D20 companies are producing alternate systems, and the game isn't "evolving".  If WotC won't take the suggestions of these companies, and make them available in the SRD, then of course it won't grow.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 9, 2005)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> All of Sovereign Press' hardcover sourcebooks for Dragonlance have been full-color. I think that's pretty rare outside of WOTC. I do think the product line is less spoken of around here because of the license, but those of us who're writing for the books make sure to add in a lot of lootable content.
> 
> Of course, it's not OGL lootable content. But still...
> 
> ...




You know, after I wrote that, the little voice in my head said "don't forget Sovereign Press", but it was getting late, and I didn't feel like editing it at that point, but you're right.  I'm a DL fan, so I have a few of the books.  I didn't like the 5th Age sourcebook as much, but the Bestiary and Towers of High Sorcery were really cool.

Doesn't seem like DL gets a lot of love among the EN World crowd, though.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 9, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I was very pleased to see that. We're all playing in their sandbox and it goes to show that not only we can make some money off their OGC, they can make some money off of ours.
> 
> I wish WotC would look into doing a compilation of d20 material released by 3rd parties and turn it into another Unearted Arcana type book. That kind of recipriocity would be a win-win for everyone involved.
> 
> joe b.




Malhavoc did something similar with the Year's Best D20 book....but it would be neat to see WotC use more of that content as well.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 9, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> The period you mentioned (shortly after the release of Blue Rose) was when we parted ways with the company that used to do our sales and fulfilment. We like to actually get the money for the books we sell; guess we're funny that way. Anyway, after that we made some new deals and started handling sales ourselves but there was a transition period in getting that all worked out. We do currently sell to four Canadian distributors: Lion Rampant, Universal, New Century, and Dynamic. If your local store is still having issues, tell them to drop us a line at our custserv address {custserv [at] greenronin.com}.




Will do, I'll let them know.  I think they were using Canadian Distributors.  Not sure if they use any others.  The other I've heard of is Diamond.  Overall, Green Ronin is one company that seems to be hard to find around here.  Sword & Sorcery, AEG, and Sovereign Press seem to all get coverage, but Green Ronin...I can only find your product in one store in Ottawa.

Banshee


----------



## Hussar (Oct 9, 2005)

Well, I actually wasn't thinking of current releases either.  WOTC certainly doesn't place newly released books into the srd, so I don't see why other companies should.  But, take an example that's near to my gaming experiences.  I recently ran a naval campaign.  At the time, there were at least five separate d20 rule books for running naval combat.  There are more now.  Think about that for a second.

Five naval combat rulebooks for DnD.  What other gaming system would see five different rule books covering EXACTLY the same subject?  Wasn't the point of the OGL so that companies didn't do this?  And it's not like naval campaigns are mainstream gaming.  This is a pretty small niche.

In addition, as I write this, I know that at least three of those rules books are out of print.  Essentially, the companies that wrote those rules will never make a dime out of those books again (in almost all likelyhood).  How could it hurt for one of them, say, Mongoose, to put out a Naval Revised SRD which included the SRD plus Seas of Blood?

Or, better yet, contact someone like Sovelier Sage or the guys at the Hypertext SRD and hand them the rtf files.  Ask them to add a section onto their website for a Mongoose Naval SRD Supplement.  I'm pretty sure they'd jump at it.  

I could see this having three effects:

a)  Other companies could then start producing books based on the Supplemented SRD's without having to reprint the entire material from whatever book they drew it from.  As it stands now, if I want to make a book with a PrC from Scarred Lands (for example) I either have to use up a page or two reprinting the PrC or I have to make my buyers angry for not including the material.

b)  Increased lifespan for 3.5.  By greatly beefing up the SRD, you increase the number of people who will use it, thus meaning that more people will stick with 3.5 when 4e eventually comes out.  This is definitely a win for the d20 crowd who lose out the hardest when a new edition is released.

c)  Provide a great deal of advertising.  By having a ((Company Name)) Supplemented SRD, you reach out to many more potential buyers that might otherwise completely ignore your books since they don't know you exist.

d)  Greatly increase the chance that 4e will be OGL.  As it stands, WOTC has no real incentive to make 4e OGL since they're the only ones making the rules available to users.  Sure, OGC is useable by other publishers, but, then again, it isn't other publishers who buy your books.

Then again, what do I know?


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In addition, as I write this, I know that at least three of those rules books are out of print.  Essentially, the companies that wrote those rules will never make a dime out of those books again (in almost all likelyhood).  How could it hurt for one of them, say, Mongoose, to put out a Naval Revised SRD which included the SRD plus Seas of Blood?




One effect it would have would be preventing the company from releasing the book in PDF form, which is a nice way for a company to make some extra cash in the long term from an out of print book.

Its a simple fact of economics- d20 companies are tightly budgeted operations that are usually struggling to stay out of the red. Most are beginning to release out of print books in PDF so they can continue to see a return on them.

Asking them not to do that- or even worse asking them to pay someone to make a "SRD" so the material would be free, is an expense the vast majority of RPG companies simply cant afford. 

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'm not the only person citing a lack of support for purchasing decisions.




Lack of support and providing free SRDs are totally seperate issues.

I dont think you do realize that when you ask for a core book to be given away free as a SRD you are removing the only reason supporting a line is financially viable for a game company.

The reason most companies continue to support lines is to sell more core rulebooks. That's where the money is. 

Support products don't sell well, so a company will usually hope to make a small profit on the support book itself, while driving the sales of an already successful book higher.

This is especially useful to continue selling a book (and convincing retailers to continue stocking that book) after the initial 30 days, when most RPG books do the bulk of their sales. 

Chuck


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The simple fact is, the information is already out there, the fact that the companies won't put it out in a format under their control is the problem.



Interesting choice of words. Saying that it is a "problem" that companies won't give away the core elements of their products for free.







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> So, when WotC said "no need to buy 3.5, you can download the SRD for free." they were lying? It's really only for the publishers? In that case, someone might want to tell WotC, because they foolishly made it available to us peons too.



Hmm... I don't recall WotC ever saying that. Then again, in regards to this issue, you cannot really compare WotC to any other company. They are in a class all by themselves.







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I mainly game online, but even in person it's a pain to not have a resource seperate. Unless you're suggesting I photocopy it? That'd be Wrong.



There are laws about "Fair Use". Personally, I see nothing wrong with copying a section of a product and giving that to another person to use if they don't have the product. For electronic products, I can easily see, and accept a person copying portions of the PDF they purchased to hand out to their players. The operative word here is "portion" as in not the whole thing, and not the majority of the thing. 







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Kind of glossed over the part about me BUYING the book if the SRD was there? Possibly you're just replying to someone else and didn't seperate it from my quote.



No, I was replying to you. However, your statement wasn't all that clear, so I replied to the overall impression I received from that last portion.







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> You've got companies doing 100% OGC material, companies which say that their sales are mostly in the 3 months after release. Companies that already have PDF's of the same products. It would be quite simple for core rules to be provided in a usable/ no frills format 3-6 months after the release. I'm also not advocating making EVERY product free, just as WotC doesn't add everything to the SRD.



Except that while print versions may have a limited lifespan (and this is an artificial lifespan imposed mostly by distributors who want and promote the frontlist syndrome), PDF versions have no lifespan, and continue to sell well past those time marks you gave. Thus, putting out a free no-frills version only undercuts and kills those sales.

Perhaps you missed the thread where Phil Reed talked about doing this. He put out a product, and a few months later put out a SRD for it. The result? All sales for that product died, and it had been a steady selling product up until then.







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Has the COMPLETE D20 Modern SRD reduced sales of D20 Modern books? WotC does it fine. Other companies assume it'd be bad, so they don't do it.



Does that "complete" SRD contain stuff from every book? I doubt it. Nor does WotC put information from any but a few core products under the SRD on the fantasy side of things. They have not placed anything from any product under the SRD in a long time, not even the material from Unearthed Arcana which is almost fully OGC (very few, if any of their other products use the OGL in any form, not even their core books - subsets of the core books have been placed under the OGL, and included in the SRD, but the books themselves are NOT OGL).







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> If the money is that tight, perhaps RPG's shouldn't be their sole business. But, I do appreciate the work they do (for the most part) and don't mind paying the exorbitant prices books get nowadays (again, for the most part).



Money is not always that tight, but at the moment it likely is, as there is a major downturn over the past several months of rpg sales (for ALL companies) according to distributors.







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> What I meant was, I expect support for a product, and I have a specific idea of what that support should/would/could be. COmpanies in response tell me they'd go bankrupt for supporting their products in such a manner. "We're too busy making new books to update <blah class> to 3.5", is not the answer I want to hear, and will affect my purchase of future products.



Up above, you mentioned products having a limited shelf life. And here you are complaining because companies also believe that and won't upgrade a product because they feel that upgrading it won't reset that shelf life timer (which it won't, for the most part).

Remember, a company's idea of support is going to be based primarily on economics first, and then on the company's desires

Oh, and it isn't always about budget. It is also about time and the manpower involved. Most RPG companies, (WotC being the MAJOR exception here) are small, having only a few people on staff. The time and effort spent on "upgrading" products has to be taken into account. 

"Let's see, we can either get this new book finished and watch it sell very well, or upgrade this old book that hasn't sold at all in the past 2 years and hope that it sells a few copies." Guess which one he will pick? The one he is sure will sell well, or the one that might sell a few copies?







			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> As I mentioned above, I'm not saying I'll use a pirate copy, I'm saying that they're already out there, so decrying "giving it away for free" doesn't work for me, given someone has already provided a complete copy.



You do realize that companies do NOT want those priated copies out there? Saying that they should "give it away for free" because some sleazebag is doing it illegally is not a good response. All that is going to do it to tick said companies off.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Five naval combat rulebooks for DnD.  What other gaming system would see five different rule books covering EXACTLY the same subject?  Wasn't the point of the OGL so that companies didn't do this?  And it's not like naval campaigns are mainstream gaming.  This is a pretty small niche.
> 
> In addition, as I write this, I know that at least three of those rules books are out of print.  Essentially, the companies that wrote those rules will never make a dime out of those books again (in almost all likelyhood).  How could it hurt for one of them, say, Mongoose, to put out a Naval Revised SRD which included the SRD plus Seas of Blood?



Who is going to pay for the person who does the work? Who is going to cover his other duties while he is doing this? Those are the ways in which a company is hurt by doing this. It takes time and manpower to accomplish, which pulls somebody away from something else (which quite likely will make a profit).







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Or, better yet, contact someone like Sovelier Sage or the guys at the Hypertext SRD and hand them the rtf files.  Ask them to add a section onto their website for a Mongoose Naval SRD Supplement.  I'm pretty sure they'd jump at it.



Right, and if the product handed over was not 100% OGC, then the company has to have somebody go through and make sure that they did not include PI in what they put online. Time and manpower quite likely better spent elsewhere.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I could see this having three effects:
> 
> a)  Other companies could then start producing books based on the Supplemented SRD's without having to reprint the entire material from whatever book they drew it from.  As it stands now, if I want to make a book with a PrC from Scarred Lands (for example) I either have to use up a page or two reprinting the PrC or I have to make my buyers angry for not including the material.



Sorry, but wrong. The PrC would still have to be reprinted even if there was an SRD with the material in it. It is an extrememly bad practice to require customers to look elsewhere (other books, online, etc..) for material that is used in a product. Given the fact that the vast majority of gamers are not actually online, this means that the product will end up nearly worthless.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> b)  Increased lifespan for 3.5.  By greatly beefing up the SRD, you increase the number of people who will use it, thus meaning that more people will stick with 3.5 when 4e eventually comes out.  This is definitely a win for the d20 crowd who lose out the hardest when a new edition is released.



Sorry, but again wrong. As mentioned above, the vast majority of gamers are not online in any meaningful way. This means that they couldn't care less if there is some master SRD out there or not. It is quite likely that 4e will not be released under the OGL at all. There is a possibility that it may be released under a more restrictive license. In fact, by beefing up the SRD, it could have the effect of pushing WotC into releasing 4e sooner than planned.

Remember the OGC Repository that Mearls suggested several weeks ago? Remember the reaction that publishers had towards it? A beefed up SRD will not increase the lifespan of 3.5, if anything, it will kill it as more publishers move away from it and/or use much more restrictive declarations.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> c)  Provide a great deal of advertising.  By having a ((Company Name)) Supplemented SRD, you reach out to many more potential buyers that might otherwise completely ignore your books since they don't know you exist.



Sorry, but I think that this one is wrong as well. As Phil learned the hard way, releasing an SRD (for smaller publishers at least) kills sales, not generates them. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? 







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> d)  Greatly increase the chance that 4e will be OGL.  As it stands, WOTC has no real incentive to make 4e OGL since they're the only ones making the rules available to users.  Sure, OGC is useable by other publishers, but, then again, it isn't other publishers who buy your books.



Sorry, I don't see it this way either. Part of the idea behind the OGL was to make other publishers buy your books in order to re-use your OGC, at least that seems to be the mind set of many publishers, and of the purpose of the design of the OGL (which does not require publishers to create a SRD of OGC - unlike the GPL which requires developers to freely distribute the source code of products using GPL code).

Again, I want to point out that Phil Reed tried to make an SRD out of one of his products and it killed all sales for that product. You do that on a larger scale, and it will kill sales on a larger scale. This in turn would reduce the chances of 4e being OGL as killing sales is not something a company really wants.


----------



## Cam Banks (Oct 9, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> You know, after I wrote that, the little voice in my head said "don't forget Sovereign Press", but it was getting late, and I didn't feel like editing it at that point, but you're right.  I'm a DL fan, so I have a few of the books.  I didn't like the 5th Age sourcebook as much, but the Bestiary and Towers of High Sorcery were really cool.




_Holy Orders of the Stars_ is out now, and if you liked Towers, you should ilke this one. It's not era-specific, so it's just as useful for a War of the Lance or pre-Cataclysm game.



> Doesn't seem like DL gets a lot of love among the EN World crowd, though.




Not really, no. It's a 21 year old setting and it has kender in it and the original modules are now considered by many to be an exercise in railroading, which turns many people off. It's a shame, because we do put a heck of a lot of work into the books. That's true of anybody, though, I think - in fact, one of the major issues I feel plagues the d20 market comes when the products are attached to a license or specific setting. There could be all kinds of good stuff in the book, but if you have no interest in the property to begin with, you won't bother taking a look.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Lack of support and providing free SRDs are totally seperate issues.
> 
> I dont think you do realize that when you ask for a core book to be given away free as a SRD you are removing the only reason supporting a line is financially viable for a game company.
> 
> The reason most companies continue to support lines is to sell more core rulebooks. That's where the money is.



I'd be surprised if the difference in print runs is that large for the D20 Companies. Perhaps Core's sell double, for popular systems maybe triple. For D&D maybe 10 times, but everyone agrees that WotC is on a different scale. By putting the rules material of the core book in a usable, no frills format, I'd say people are more likely to buy continueing materal for the gameline, because they have access to the variant core rules.

For example, I like the flavor of some of the Swashbuckling Adventures supplements, and have bought them. I lack the basic rules from their D20 Core book, but since I'm not going to use the setting, it's a waste of money for me to buy that core book. An SRD would greatly increase the usability of the supplements I do buy, and I'd probably buy more. Eventually I'd probably buy the Core just because.

Also, supplements in general are less work than the Core. While it's true the price tag for core books means the publisher gets more money from that book's sale, follow on sales for quicker to produce books is a continueing source of money.



> Support products don't sell well, so a company will usually hope to make a small profit on the support book itself, while driving the sales of an already successful book higher.
> 
> This is especially useful to continue selling a book (and convincing retailers to continue stocking that book) after the initial 30 days, when most RPG books do the bulk of their sales.
> 
> Chuck



Support products don't sell as well because they're tied to the core book. The more products you require to make a supplement usable, the lower the actual sales of that product will be. Making an SRD free would cure some of that problem.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> One effect it would have would be preventing the company from releasing the book in PDF form, which is a nice way for a company to make some extra cash in the long term from an out of print book.
> 
> Its a simple fact of economics- d20 companies are tightly budgeted operations that are usually struggling to stay out of the red. Most are beginning to release out of print books in PDF so they can continue to see a return on them.
> 
> ...



Most of the companies are just now discovering the PDF for OOP market. I'm not advocating putting every product up, and no Product Identity would make it into the SRD.

So, yes, it would kill, or seriously hurt, the PDF market for largely rules oriented material. For PDF publishers, this would be a serious issue. For most of the bigger print folks, PDF is not a main source of income, but rather some notion they had for making additional income. I also think it's vastly overestimating the amount of revenue the PDF generates. Like any other form of advertising or support, the expense is part of gaining customers for the future, rather than gaining a direct buck for this transaction.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Interesting choice of words. Saying that it is a "problem" that companies won't give away the core elements of their products for free.Hmm... I don't recall WotC ever saying that. Then again, in regards to this issue, you cannot really compare WotC to any other company. They are in a class all by themselves.



Yes, they understand advertising, and engendering goodwill. I think the problem with quoting WotC's scope of operations is the idea that they make more, without the contingent that Hasbro EXPECTS more. Hasbro and WotC understand that some products and some effort (such as the WotC site offering free content) is an investment in the business, not a cash drain for greedy consumers that want "core elements for free".



> Except that while print versions may have a limited lifespan (and this is an artificial lifespan imposed mostly by distributors who want and promote the frontlist syndrome),



I think the distribution system will really drive RPG's to a different system eventually. Mark up is consistant, so to increase revenue, the prices go up, driving more people to the online discount shops. In addition, distributors stocking practices and payment practices tend to fluctuate with company whim, making it hard to get stuff.
If companies were really worried about local gaming stores, they'd find a way for them to make a higher percentage of the sale price, along with the manufacturer, and a system that made it where Amazon/buy.com couldn't do the deep discounts at the same time. But, since the RPG industry is so fractiuous, I can't see that happening without some huge stimulus.




> Perhaps you missed the thread where Phil Reed talked about doing this. He put out a product, and a few months later put out a SRD for it. The result? All sales for that product died, and it had been a steady selling product up until then.



I'd agree that PDF is in a different class for this discussion. But at the same time, how many PDF's make a great sale? If you sold 300 pdf's, you'd be a sales leader, if you sold 300 books, you'd be in bankruptcy. I'm one of those that doesn't do much with PDF's anymore, so my views there are biased.

Does Phil Reed build on past PDF's with future PDF's? If so, did products that built on this PDF given for free increase or decrease?



> Does that "complete" SRD contain stuff from every book? I doubt it. Nor does WotC put information from any but a few core products under the SRD on the fantasy side of things.



The D20 Modern SRD is complete up to Future and Urban Arcana. Not sure if they'll add Past, Apocalypse or Cyberscape, or when.

The D&D SRD is less complete, rarely added to. I don't have any official quotes for why, but if they feel that the fantasy side is being taken advantage of, then I could understand why. Either way, I'm not asking that every book be added to say, a GR SRD. Just the core rules (or core rule differences) and perhaps a sampling of the elements from supplements that are "core" for future products.



> Up above, you mentioned products having a limited shelf life. And here you are complaining because companies also believe that and won't upgrade a product because they feel that upgrading it won't reset that shelf life timer (which it won't, for the most part).



When purchasing something, I keep in mind the likeliness that the product will require Erratta, and the presence of past Erratta's from the company. If I've got a bunch of 3.0 products and the companies response to fan requests for a 3.5 update is "we don't have the time or effort to put into it" then it counts when I'm purchasing another product from them. If I can't count on the company supporting a product that may be flawed in some way, then I need to keep it in mind.



> Remember, a company's idea of support is going to be based primarily on economics first, and then on the company's desires
> 
> Oh, and it isn't always about budget. It is also about time and the manpower involved. Most RPG companies, (WotC being the MAJOR exception here) are small, having only a few people on staff. The time and effort spent on "upgrading" products has to be taken into account.



WotC pays their employee's, some of the web updates and such are produced by freelancers. WotC understands that such things are a part of doing business. There is no magical pot of gold at Hasbro HQ, with which to pay for such things.


Other companies only see what's in front of them, they want (and need) the next product, so they keep moving forward. I've come to the opinion lately that a lot of the D20 companies have lost sight of the hobby.




> You do realize that companies do NOT want those priated copies out there? Saying that they should "give it away for free" because some sleazebag is doing it illegally is not a good response. All that is going to do it to tick said companies off.



Do they simply close their eyes and say that there are no pirated copies? In case the point isn't clear, Free Fully Formated copies exist, the company should understand that. They can ignore that and discard old products (or try to turn a couple more dollars from PDF sales) or they can garner goodwill and continued sales by releasing some of the work under their own control. I'm not advocating theft of property, I'm merely raising the point that it's not a binary condition. They don't have the choice of "release material" or "never see material released". It's already there, and to ignore that condition and grumble about piracy is pointless.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Most of the companies are just now discovering the PDF for OOP market. I'm not advocating putting every product up, and no Product Identity would make it into the SRD.
> 
> So, yes, it would kill, or seriously hurt, the PDF market for largely rules oriented material. For PDF publishers, this would be a serious issue. For most of the bigger print folks, PDF is not a main source of income, but rather some notion they had for making additional income. I also think it's vastly overestimating the amount of revenue the PDF generates. Like any other form of advertising or support, the expense is part of gaining customers for the future, rather than gaining a direct buck for this transaction.




A) Your statement that "big publishers" arent in the PDF market is flat wrong. Green Ronin, Mongoose, Sword and Sorcery, Malhavoc, Fantasy Flight... if there's a "big" publisher that's not in the PDF market I am unaware of it. 

B) Your statement about "the future" represents a fundamental lack of knowledge about how RPG companies operate. The "future" is next quarter for most RPG companies. For some it might be next year if they're very prosperous and stable.

The simple fact is, RPG companies need every revenue stream they can get. 

C) Print sales have been trending downward, and the majority of sales are made in the short term. PDF sales are trending up and a well designed PDF product is "ever green". Barring something major (like 3.5 edition) it will sell forever.

All this adds up to making PDF vital to the survival of RPG companies in the current climate.

You can *wish* it wasnt like this. Heck I wish that too. But wishing doesn't make it so. 

You're asking for something companies simply CANNOT (for the most part) afford to do. 

You cant get blood out of a stone. Companies would go out of business doing what you're asking.

Chuck


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> All this adds up to making PDF vital to the survival of RPG companies in the current climate.
> 
> You can *wish* it wasnt like this. Heck I wish that too. But wishing doesn't make it so.



How much revenue does a PDF release bring in for someone like GR?



> You're asking for something companies simply CANNOT (for the most part) afford to do.
> 
> You cant get blood out of a stone. Companies would go out of business doing what you're asking.
> 
> Chuck



Guardians of Order has had their Anime SRD online for a while now. Someone should mention to them that they're out of business, because they didn't get the memo.
The simple fact is, we don't know what would happen. The publishers think it'd ruin them, so they don't do it. Deriding the possibility as unworkable doesn't mean it's unworkable. Companies are making profit in the Status Quo, so that's where they'll remain.


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Support products don't sell as well because they're tied to the core book. The more products you require to make a supplement usable, the lower the actual sales of that product will be. Making an SRD free would cure some of that problem.



If someone wasn't interested enough in the core book to buy it, chances are that they wouldn't be interested in buying supplements for it either.  You might gain a few sales of supplements, but probably not nearly enough to recoup the lost sales of your core rulebooks.

Atlas games tried what you're advocating a couple years ago, as an experiement.  They released the 4th edition of Ars Magica as a free PDF.  The first effect of that was that the sales of the rulebook plummetted to almost zero.  What had been a slow but steady rate of sales disappeared virtually overnight.  In addition, the sales on their supplement to that book didn't increase either.  Atlas tried the sales theory you're advocating, and it was a dismal failure.


----------



## philreed (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Guardians of Order has had their Anime SRD online for a while now. Someone should mention to them that they're out of business, because they didn't get the memo.




Trust me, they got the memo. Ask all of the staff that lost their jobs.

GOO is in very, very bad shape.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Trust me, they got the memo. Ask all of the staff that lost their jobs.
> 
> GOO is in very, very bad shape.



And this is because of the SRD, or because of exchange rates and such? I think GoO would have information on how the SRD affected sales of their products. For myself it contributed to purchasing Centauri Knights, the Stingy Anime Edition, Mecha and a few other books.

The difference with the Ars Magica release were a few, such as a new edition already announced, the release of a PDF with the full version of the game, and the general "niche" of Ars Magica. I'm not sure how any of this affected everything overall, but they aren't factors to ignore.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think the distribution system will really drive RPG's to a different system eventually. Mark up is consistant, so to increase revenue, the prices go up, driving more people to the online discount shops. In addition, distributors stocking practices and payment practices tend to fluctuate with company whim, making it hard to get stuff.



The distribution system is in the process of a slow meltdown. It was even before the advent of the OGL and D&D3e. The OGL and the results of it only made the situation worse.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> If companies were really worried about local gaming stores, they'd find a way for them to make a higher percentage of the sale price, along with the manufacturer, and a system that made it where Amazon/buy.com couldn't do the deep discounts at the same time. But, since the RPG industry is so fractiuous, I can't see that happening without some huge stimulus.



So, are you saying that publishers should subsidize retailers? The only way to avoid the online deep discounters is to not sell to them. Since the majority of them all deal with one or two distributors (such as Ingrams, the large book chain distributor), that is relatively easy, but doing so also means that publisher's books won't be in Barnes & Noble or Waldenbooks or any other large chain.

Many publishers won't even deal with the book trade distributors because of they insist on a return policy, and out of those 2,000 books the publisher sold to them in September, 1,500 are likely to be returned in December (so the distributor has a low count for end of year inventory), meaning that the publisher has to refund the payment (which is likely already spent on publishing other products). This plays havoc with finances, and it hurt a number of companies just this past year when it happened. 

Yes, the current distribution system is dying and until something comes along that can replace it, it is something publishers have to deal with. Publishers do not have any real say in how the distribution system works. It doesn't matter if they are fractious or not, they cannot control what they do not own.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'd agree that PDF is in a different class for this discussion. But at the same time, how many PDF's make a great sale? If you sold 300 pdf's, you'd be a sales leader, if you sold 300 books, you'd be in bankruptcy. I'm one of those that doesn't do much with PDF's anymore, so my views there are biased.



When ICE first put out HARP as a pdf, I asked several of the publishers how many sales would be needed to consider the HARP PDF as a success. At the time, I was told anything between 300 and 500 copies in the first month. HARP sold more than that minimum (300) in its first 3 days, and beat the maximum quoted (500) in its first week.

Since that time, ICE's PDF sales have continually climbed. Print sales have fluctuated a bit, sometimes climbing, sometimes slipping, but in general and on average, steady. ICE is one of the top 50 (IIRC, someplace in the 30s) on rpgnow, yet rpgnow is only a fraction of our pdf sales (maybe 5%-10%)


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Does Phil Reed build on past PDF's with future PDF's? If so, did products that built on this PDF given for free increase or decrease?



 No idea.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The D20 Modern SRD is complete up to Future and Urban Arcana. Not sure if they'll add Past, Apocalypse or Cyberscape, or when.



 Really? Every product? Every supplement? Not just few "core products", but everything?


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The D&D SRD is less complete, rarely added to. I don't have any official quotes for why, *but if they feel that the fantasy side is being taken advantage of, then I could understand why*.



I bolded and underlined a portion of what you said there. That IS the point that I am trying to get across here. The various 3rd party d20 publishers DO feel that if they put their stuff into SRD, that they WILL get taken advantage of. You say it is fine if WotC feels that way, but not other companies???


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Either way, I'm not asking that every book be added to say, a GR SRD. Just the core rules (or core rule differences) and perhaps a sampling of the elements from supplements that are "core" for future products.



Ahh.. yes, put their core bits in an SRD so that others can take advantage of them, so that they can lose sales of those core products.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> When purchasing something, I keep in mind the likeliness that the product will require Erratta, and the presence of past Erratta's from the company. If I've got a bunch of 3.0 products and the companies response to fan requests for a 3.5 update is "we don't have the time or effort to put into it" then it counts when I'm purchasing another product from them. If I can't count on the company supporting a product that may be flawed in some way, then I need to keep it in mind.



ROFLMAO!!!!
You do realize that erratta is "correcting mistakes", right? Products written using the 3.0 SRD were NOT mistakes, they were proper product written using the current ruleset at the time of publication. It is not their fault that WotC pulled the rug out from under them and released 3.5 2 years earlier than originally planned. Just because the system itself changed does not make those products "incorrect" or mistaken.

And if those 3.0 products are dead (as in sales of those products dropped below a level that allows that product to be maintained and reprinted), then there is not any profit in supporting it and updating it to the newer system, especially if it that updating will not generate enough sales to pay for that update. In other words, "It's dead, Jim".

That is soemthing that you need to understand and accept. I will say it again. If updating a given 3.0 product will not cause enough sales of that product to pay for the expenses required to do that update and generate a profit, then the company would be stupid to do that update.

It again falls back on economics. It has to be worthwhile to do such an update or else it won't get done, and shouldn't be done.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> WotC pays their employee's, some of the web updates and such are produced by freelancers. WotC understands that such things are a part of doing business. There is no magical pot of gold at Hasbro HQ, with which to pay for such things.



And now for something completely different.... the Larch!

I was talking about "upgrading". From 3.0 to 3.5, not online support such as web enhancements for freebies or articles or whatever.

First off, WotC generates revenue that is several orders of magnitude greater than any other rpg company (they have this little thing, it is called D&D, and it tends to make them a little bit of money). More revenue means that they can afford to hire more folks to generate online freebies and support items for products. 

Support items are not the same thing as product upgrades (from 3.0 to 3.5). Not even WotC does "product upgrades", at least not in the sense that you have been talking about. They may have "upgraded" bits and pieces and put them in other products, but that is not what you have been talking about (at least, I don't think it is, I know it isn't what I have been talking about).



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Other companies only see what's in front of them, they want (and need) the next product, so they keep moving forward. I've come to the opinion lately that a lot of the D20 companies have lost sight of the hobby.



Sorry, but I just have to call "BS" on this comment. 

From what you are saying, you are upset that because they won't go back and "fix" products that you feel are "broken" (because WotC screwed* them over with its early release 3.5), that they have lost sight of the "hobby"? Sheesh!!

Here is a clue. Publishers don't look at rpgs as "hobby", they look at them as a business. And if something does not make business sense, they are not going to do it, period.

*And yes, I say WotC screwed them over, because on the OGL lists, back before 3.0 had been released, Ryan Dancey (who was working for WotC at the time) told the members of that list that they did not have to worry about WotC changing things (i.e. the system) for at least 5 years.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Do they simply close their eyes and say that there are no pirated copies?



No, they go after them to make them stop illegally distributing their products.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> In case the point isn't clear, Free Fully Formated copies exist, the company should understand that. They can ignore that and discard old products (or try to turn a couple more dollars from PDF sales) or they can garner goodwill and continued sales by releasing some of the work under their own control. I'm not advocating theft of property, I'm merely raising the point that it's not a binary condition. They don't have the choice of "release material" or "never see material released". It's already there, and to ignore that condition and grumble about piracy is pointless.



"Free Fully Formatted"?? Nice euphamism for "pirated copy". As I stated above, whether or not a product will get "updated" needs to be an economic decision. If updating it will generate enough profits that will pay for it and more, then yes. But if it won't, then there is no reason to update it unless they are going to use portions in other products and then it makes sense to only update those portions needed. No matter what a few disgruntled fans may think about it.

If a fan is not intelligent enough to see this, then perhaps it is best if they went elsewhere.


			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> C) Print sales have been trending downward, and the majority of sales are made in the short term.



Man, that is an understatement if ever there was one. Prints have been "trending downward" for years. In the past year, they (print sales to distributors and on through to retailers, at least) have tanked, in a major way. Tanked so badly that several distributors have gone out (or in at least one case, gotten out) of business.


			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> PDF sales are trending up and a well designed PDF product is "ever green". Barring something major (like 3.5 edition) it will sell forever.
> 
> All this adds up to making PDF vital to the survival of RPG companies in the current climate.



Yup. I think you are completely right on the money here. PDF sales, and direct sales of print products is where things seem to be heading.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Oct 9, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> *Loads a new suction cup tipped Nerf dart into his overly complicated gun/bow/thingy*
> 
> Hey Merric, I got somethin' for ya...
> 
> ...




Sometimes I wouldnt mind using something semi-lethal, like a Taser(tm) or rocksalt.


----------



## philreed (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> And this is because of the SRD, or because of exchange rates and such?




I suspect it was a lot of little problems that were then pushed by one bigger problem.

My point is that they're not exactly the best company to hold up as an example these days.


----------



## Belen (Oct 9, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> One effect it would have would be preventing the company from releasing the book in PDF form, which is a nice way for a company to make some extra cash in the long term from an out of print book.
> 
> Its a simple fact of economics- d20 companies are tightly budgeted operations that are usually struggling to stay out of the red. Most are beginning to release out of print books in PDF so they can continue to see a return on them.
> 
> ...




You're right.  Asking a company to provide a service for their customers is totally uncool.

Funny thing here is that the companies do not have to pay anyone to make an SRD.  They could find a gamer to do it for free.  I'll bet a lot of gamers would do it as long as they had their name attached, such as "SRD created by so and so..."

I am sure that a lot of excuses exist for companies to avoid doing things.  Of course, they never look for solutions either.


----------



## Belen (Oct 9, 2005)

IN any event, more main issues with d20 companies remain the lack of support for their products.  Lack of support keeps me from using a lot of thier material and keeps me playing D&D, which is supported.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Yes, the current distribution system is dying and until something comes along that can replace it, it is something publishers have to deal with. Publishers do not have any real say in how the distribution system works. It doesn't matter if they are fractious or not, they cannot control what they do not own.



If the industry had a central bargaining entity, it would have more power than singular companies. That's what I meant by "fractiious".





> Really? Every product? Every supplement? Not just few "core products", but everything?



I'm not sure if you're argueing or asking, but if you go to the SRD section for D20 Modern, you'll see that significant portions of the books are indeed free, online.



> I bolded and underlined a portion of what you said there. That IS the point that I am trying to get across here. The various 3rd party d20 publishers DO feel that if they put their stuff into SRD, that they WILL get taken advantage of. You say it is fine if WotC feels that way, but not other companies???



WotC not adding material to the SRD because they feel that publishers are using their material without adding to it in a significant manner, is totally different than a publisher holding on to their material in the fear that people won't buy books that have already sold past their prime. The material the publishers are withholding is material that is already OGL, and can be used by anyone. They're just not making it accessible to folks.



> Ahh.. yes, put their core bits in an SRD so that others can take advantage of them, so that they can lose sales of those core products.



Er, this is exactly what the discussion is ABOUT, whether it would hurt or not.



> ROFLMAO!!!!
> You do realize that erratta is "correcting mistakes", right? Products written using the 3.0 SRD were NOT mistakes, they were proper product written using the current ruleset at the time of publication. It is not their fault that WotC pulled the rug out from under them and released 3.5 2 years earlier than originally planned. Just because the system itself changed does not make those products "incorrect" or mistaken.



Two seperate items, both labeled under "support" in my paragraph. Erratta and Updates are Support. My point is, a lot of the third party stuff I was getting was in need of Erratta, and I've yet to see any. Therfor, I don't buy from those companies without verifying that the material is significantly error-free.




> And if those 3.0 products are dead (as in sales of those products dropped below a level that allows that product to be maintained and reprinted), then there is not any profit in supporting it and updating it to the newer system, especially if it that updating will not generate enough sales to pay for that update. In other words, "It's dead, Jim".
> 
> That is soemthing that you need to understand and accept. I will say it again. If updating a given 3.0 product will not cause enough sales of that product to pay for the expenses required to do that update and generate a profit, then the company would be stupid to do that update.



They'd be stupid to respond to fan's requests for support? I think there's a fundamental issue there. I'm saying companies should support their older products, and that doing so would benefit them overall as fans return because they know that support is there.



> First off, WotC generates revenue that is several orders of magnitude greater than any other rpg company (they have this little thing, it is called D&D, and it tends to make them a little bit of money). More revenue means that they can afford to hire more folks to generate online freebies and support items for products.



And that greater support will benefit them in the long run. Plus, as I said, generating more revenue is true, but they also have higher expectations for revenue, they have Corporate Overlords to please.


> Support items are not the same thing as product upgrades (from 3.0 to 3.5). Not even WotC does "product upgrades", at least not in the sense that you have been talking about. They may have "upgraded" bits and pieces and put them in other products, but that is not what you have been talking about (at least, I don't think it is, I know it isn't what I have been talking about).



I'm talking about something like this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a



> Sorry, but I just have to call "BS" on this comment.
> 
> From what you are saying, you are upset that because they won't go back and "fix" products that you feel are "broken" (because WotC screwed* them over with its early release 3.5), that they have lost sight of the "hobby"? Sheesh!!



Two seperate issues. It doesn't matter to me WHY something is no longer useful, if the company did further playtesting and found out some feat or PrC was broken, I'd appreciate a fix. It's not mandatory for every product, but it is a plus in the "support" column.



> Here is a clue. Publishers don't look at rpgs as "hobby", they look at them as a business. And if something does not make business sense, they are not going to do it, period.



The RPG business is different. The money invested in an RPG company would most likely make more money in many other business models. If they're doing it solely as an investment, then they're doing it wrong. RPG companies have to take their industry and their audience in mind when planning for the future and the long term stability of the market.



> *And yes, I say WotC screwed them over, because on the OGL lists, back before 3.0 had been released, Ryan Dancey (who was working for WotC at the time) told the members of that list that they did not have to worry about WotC changing things (i.e. the system) for at least 5 years.



Opinions vary.





> "Free Fully Formatted"?? Nice euphamism for "pirated copy".



Er, I said it was pirated, that's what I was talking about. The "free fully formatted" was to contrast the pirated copy versus a nofrills company produced version.




> If a fan is not intelligent enough to see this, then perhaps it is best if they went elsewhere.






			
				vocenoctum said:
			
		

> To forestall the next step in most of these discussions, telling me that the publishers don't want me as a customer isn't the best answer for a consumer market. I'm not the only person citing a lack of support for purchasing decisions.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I suspect it was a lot of little problems that were then pushed by one bigger problem.
> 
> My point is that they're not exactly the best company to hold up as an example these days.



True enough, but that I am aware of, they're the only one that has a free, online SRD. They've had it for a while, and it's contributed to some of my purchases, and I don't ever recall anyone saying it detracted from their sales.

So, even if it's only one shaky example of a company that provided an SRD and did well with it, it's the only real example I could think of. The closest to the discussion on the opposite side is the Ars Magica thing, and that's a totally different animal.


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 9, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> So, even if it's only one shaky example of a company that provided an SRD and did well with it, it's the only real example I could think of.



You're inventing the "did well with it" part.  GOO hasn't talked about how it affected their sales.  We know _nothing_ about its results.  So assuming that GOO did well with it is disingeneous at best.  One could just as reasonably assume that they did very poorly with it.


			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The difference with the Ars Magica release were a few, such as a new edition already announced, the release of a PDF with the full version of the game, and the general "niche" of Ars Magica. I'm not sure how any of this affected everything overall, but they aren't factors to ignore.



The new edition wasn't announced until a while after they started giving the 4e rules for free.  And I doubt that releasing it as a pdf of the "full version" of the game would be significantly difference from releasing a SRD with the full game without the pretty layout.

It's not a perfectly analogous to what you're suggesting, but is it any wonder that companies don't try what you're suggesting when the only examples of it that were dismal failures or had unknown results?


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 10, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> IN any event, more main issues with d20 companies remain the lack of support for their products.  Lack of support keeps me from using a lot of thier material and keeps me playing D&D, which is supported.



That's a shame.  I'd sympathize, if you didn't totally ignore that many companies _are_ supporting their games, through pdfs. 

Besides, is it good business for companies to make unprofitable print supplements just so they won't lose you as a customer?  I'd say not.  WotC can afford to make them, essentially as treating them as marketing expenses, but most other companies exist on a smaller scale that doesn't allow that.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> How much revenue does a PDF release bring in for someone like GR?





Well they dont exactly share their books with me, but in a very short time they've become the biggest vendor on RPGNow, which isnt insignificant.

The fact of the matter is, it doesnt matter how much. You seem to be implying that if its not a LOT of money (in your opinion no less) that they shouldnt bother. 



> Guardians of Order has had their Anime SRD online for a while now. Someone should mention to them that they're out of business, because they didn't get the memo.
> The simple fact is, we don't know what would happen. The publishers think it'd ruin them, so they don't do it. Deriding the possibility as unworkable doesn't mean it's unworkable. Companies are making profit in the Status Quo, so that's where they'll remain.




No it didnt drive them out of business.

But it also hasnt had some of the effects you keep claiming that 3rd party SRDs should have, so I consider that support for my position and not yours.

It has NOT made GOO's d20 mecha or d20 anime rules the industry standard, nor has it led to other companies adopting those rules.

Those SRDs have also been repackaged by a fellow 3rd party company and offered for sale (Phil Reed of Ronin Arts I believe).

Now Phil's a nice guy and I believe he did it with GOO's permission, but a company repacking an SRD and selling it is a very real possibility.

See- we aren't all the dogmatics that you think we are- some companies have experimented with this- and I personally *have* watched it with interest- I just dont see any evidence of success to the point that I would not only lose a revenue stream from PDFs, but would also PAY SOMEONE to render it in a free format.

Chuck


----------



## drothgery (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> True enough, but that I am aware of, they're the only one that has a free, online SRD. They've had it for a while, and it's contributed to some of my purchases, and I don't ever recall anyone saying it detracted from their sales.




I don't know; some of their stuff sounded interesting at first glance, but when I looked at the mechanics in the SRD it was clear that they weren't building anything I was interested in spending money on. Granted, the usual 3-5 page preview would've done the same thing if they included a crunch-heavy page or two...


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 10, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You're right.  Asking a company to provide a service for their customers is totally uncool.
> 
> Funny thing here is that the companies do not have to pay anyone to make an SRD.  They could find a gamer to do it for free.  I'll bet a lot of gamers would do it as long as they had their name attached, such as "SRD created by so and so..."
> 
> I am sure that a lot of excuses exist for companies to avoid doing things.  Of course, they never look for solutions either.




Sure I could avoid paying someone to do it.

But what I am saying is, 3rd party companies like the one I work for see real profits from SELLING these things.

And not giving a product away Id like to sell isnt "an excuse".

Its being in business.

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> True enough, but that I am aware of, they're the only one that has a free, online SRD. They've had it for a while, and it's contributed to some of my purchases, and I don't ever recall anyone saying it detracted from their sales.
> 
> So, even if it's only one shaky example of a company that provided an SRD and did well with it, it's the only real example I could think of. The closest to the discussion on the opposite side is the Ars Magica thing, and that's a totally different animal.




You most definitely do not have even ONE shaky example of anything.

On the GOO SRDs we have NO information one way or the other- except that it has not led to further publisher adoption of the mecha and anime rules (which might possibly have helped GOO but probably not- most people have no idea where to even LOOK to find out where OGC sources are listed).

On the Ars Magica, we know their sales went almost to 0 because the company publically said as much. 

But again- core rules are where companies make the MOST money. Supplements are designed to sell THEM.

Giving away the core book to sell the supplement doesnt make sense by any understanding of the RPG business model that I understand.

Most people in a group playing a game (its hoped) will eventually want the core rules, while a few buy the supplements.

The core book is often more expensive, with a larger print run and a slightly higher profit margin.

In short- if the core book still exists in print the RPG company is eager to sell it out by making supplements. If its in PDF, then the RPG company is still hoping to turn it into an evergreen product through supplements.

Here's one way you can win this argument- give me 5000 dollars to print a core book. I'll have RPGObjects print it- then I will donate my time to turn it into a free SRD and commit to doing supplements for it.

Any money over 5 grand the product makes will be yours.

Other than that, if you just want to sit on the sidelines of a business that's been my full time job for going on 4 years now and tell me "how it works"- well, color me skeptical 

Chuck


----------



## Breakdaddy (Oct 10, 2005)

If you would all just switch to Warhammer FRP 2 then we could all forget about the whole thing and be friends again.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 10, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> If you would all just switch to Warhammer FRP 2 then we could all forget about the whole thing and be friends again.




Id definitely play the game and buy a 15 dollar supplement, if only they'd give me the 50 dollar core book for free 

Chuck


----------



## Breakdaddy (Oct 10, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Id definitely play the game and buy a 15 dollar supplement, if only they'd give me the 50 dollar core book for free
> 
> Chuck




Hah! You fool!!!!!!1111one!11 IT IS WORTH EVARY PENNIES!11!!!11!!!! 

P.S.- core book is only 40 bucks, not fifty. See, you just saved yourself 10 bucks in your head, NOW GO BUY IT, CHIEF!!!111


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 10, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Hah! You fool!!!!!!1111one!11 IT IS WORTH EVARY PENNIES!11!!!11!!!!
> 
> P.S.- core book is only 40 bucks, not fifty, bubba!




That makes it an even better deal for the company then! They're losing 25 bucks instead of 35.

Course the company that makes the game is too close minded to see that.

(Yes this is sarcasm boys and girls)

Chuck


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 10, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well they dont exactly share their books with me, but in a very short time they've become the biggest vendor on RPGNow, which isnt insignificant.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, it doesnt matter how much. You seem to be implying that if its not a LOT of money (in your opinion no less) that they shouldnt bother.



I'm saying that the amount of money, while present, might be better put into drawing more customers to the material and the later material that builds on it, rather than taking the money now and losing in the end.



> No it didnt drive them out of business.
> 
> But it also hasnt had some of the effects you keep claiming that 3rd party SRDs should have, so I consider that support for my position and not yours.
> 
> It has NOT made GOO's d20 mecha or d20 anime rules the industry standard, nor has it led to other companies adopting those rules.



Where was this an issue? I said it'd help follow on sales of future products, if those future products depended on the rules. Also, it is a bit irksome to see Publishers repeatedly act like other publishers are the only beneficiary of the OGL. I don't care if D20 Mecha is the new industry standard, I only care that it's accessible to me. I'm not asking for an SRD to make publishers lives easier. I realize their business needs to be profitable, but they should likewise remember who they're selling to.

Quite often in industries like this, the companies seem more geared to their direct customer (Distrubitors) than their ultimate customers (Us).




> Those SRDs have also been repackaged by a fellow 3rd party company and offered for sale (Phil Reed of Ronin Arts I believe).
> 
> Now Phil's a nice guy and I believe he did it with GOO's permission, but a company repacking an SRD and selling it is a very real possibility.



It does make his post above kind of funny. 




> See- we aren't all the dogmatics that you think we are- some companies have experimented with this- and I personally *have* watched it with interest- I just dont see any evidence of success to the point that I would not only lose a revenue stream from PDFs, but would also PAY SOMEONE to render it in a free format.
> 
> Chuck




I think the problem is that companies would rather sit back and blame others for the failing market. (i.e. 3.5 napalmed their fields) rather than admit that the slump is because of the vast amount of tripe that was out. Everyone wants to point to WotC business model as an exception when it suits their needs, but maybe they're just doing some things BETTER than other companies?

Heck, at least they have a website that's got some basic information on it, which is more than half the D20 Companies on the web.

So, to reiterate:
I myself find it a detractor when an alternate Core system (i.e. True20, Grim Tales) is published, and months or years later, the material is still not available for players in a usable SRD.

I also find that I don't buy from companies that do not provide Erratta for products, or support in the form of continueing lines or updates. This includes websites.


----------



## philreed (Oct 10, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Those SRDs have also been repackaged by a fellow 3rd party company and offered for sale (Phil Reed of Ronin Arts I believe).
> 
> Now Phil's a nice guy and I believe he did it with GOO's permission, but a company repacking an SRD and selling it is a very real possibility.




Yep, that was my one SRD type product, done for a very specific reason:

To see what would happen to the SRD factories if one well-produced, illustrated version was released within a week of the SRD release. 

GOO knew about it (and thought it was a cool release) but -- and this is important -- I just couldn't do a straight SRD product so I added new material. And I released that new material for free online. So everything in that PDF (except the art and layout) is free online.

As far as I know it is the _only_ commercial version of that SRD that wasn't produced by GOO.


----------



## philreed (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> So, to reiterate:
> I myself find it a detractor when an alternate Core system (i.e. True20, Grim Tales) is published, and months or years later, the material is still not available for players in a usable SRD.




Did you play RPGs in the 80s and 90s?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> So everything in that PDF (except the art and layout) is free online.
> 
> As far as I know it is the _only_ commercial version of that SRD that wasn't produced by GOO.




I bought their Stingy Gamer Edition, which is also a neat idea.
How did your SRD sell, in general terms?

Also, I've been gaming since the 80's, yeah. Earliest product I bought new was Dragon #90, which drew me in. The internet has changed the industry a lot though.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'm saying that the amount of money, while present, might be better put into drawing more customers to the material and the later material that builds on it, rather than taking the money now and losing in the end.




Losing in the end? Because they wont give away something they can still sell?

How do you balance your check book?

Give away the 50 dollar core rule book so you can sell the 20 dollar supplement? Under what business model does that make sense?




> Also, it is a bit irksome to see Publishers repeatedly act like other publishers are the only beneficiary of the OGL.




No publishers are in the same boat as consumers. If I want to mine a competitors' book for OGC they aren't going to give it to me free anymore than I'd give it to you so you can pass it out to your gaming group. 



> I think the problem is that companies would rather sit back and blame others for the failing market. (i.e. 3.5 napalmed their fields) rather than admit that the slump is because of the vast amount of tripe that was out. Everyone wants to point to WotC business model as an exception when it suits their needs, but maybe they're just doing some things BETTER than other companies?




WOTC can just do things the rest of us cant.

That's not a cop out, its really not.

Look at it this way: other companies might use more of WOTC's tactics and strategies if they could sell 100,000 (or even 10,000) of a core rule book instead of the 1,000-3,000 most RPG books sell these days. 

A simple calculator will tell you that if WOTC loses a sale due to a SRD being present that its way less a percentage of the print run than if RPGObjects loses that same one sale. 

Chuck


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Did you play RPGs in the 80s and 90s?





Yup.  70s, too.  If it gets any hotter we go swimming or stay home in the A/C.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 10, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Losing in the end? Because they wont give away something they can still sell?
> 
> How do you balance your check book?
> 
> Give away the 50 dollar core rule book so you can sell the 20 dollar supplement? Under what business model does that make sense?



Lets say the core book has dwindled to selling 100 a month. Releasing the SRD cuts that to 50 a month. But, the product you release next sells 4,000 copies instead of 3,000.

No, the numbers aren't exact, since no one will give numbers, because if people used real numbers, Voodoo would kill them, or something.

So, let me repeat. Releasing an SRD say, 4 months after the Core Rules have been released, would contribute to future sales. It would also help people like me with a player base that's scattered over the USA.



> No publishers are in the same boat as consumers. If I want to mine a competitors' book for OGC they aren't going to give it to me free anymore than I'd give it to you so you can pass it out to your gaming group.



Not to speak in Absolutes, but that's simply wrong. A publisher can reprint whatever they want to from OGL material, the publisher's opinion doesn't matter.

If I wanted to, I could type up an SRD, or Scan/OCR one, and it'd be perfectly legal so long as I followed the requirements. The arguement against such is that future products would not be as much OGC, but who cares if you can't use the OGC anyway?



> WOTC can just do things the rest of us cant.
> 
> That's not a cop out, its really not.
> 
> ...



True, but the idea is that WotC isn't going to do something that loses them sales over all. They're a profitable corporate subsidiary of another corporation that demands performance from them. To believe that WotC loses money just because they can afford it is a bit silly. I do understand that it might not be possible for some of the really small guys, and like I mentioned elsewhere, a PDF product will be affected differently.

It just seems the idea is discarded too quickly among publishers afraid that it's customers are trying to get something for nothing. If you look at even a portion of the replies I've gotten, the idea is repeatedly put forth that I'm trying to do something underhanded.


----------



## rounser (Oct 10, 2005)

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but I think that this discussion is missing a massive piece of the puzzle...that designers are simply not very interested in making a "tower of orcs" (as a WotC designer reportedly contemptuously called adventure-writing), when there's a much bigger glory factor in making a setting, or a sourcebook.

Making new rules or a broad campaign setting is like talking the talk...making promises that _the DM_ is supposed to deliver on....whereas writing an adventure causes the possibilities to collapse into a singularity, it's walking the walk, and far too much like hard work when compared to the alternatives (stuffing around with maps, the history of the elves, and your cool new ranger class).  Writing about kingdoms that never were or new rules is significantly more fun than drafting out an adventure, in the same way that most DMs love to draw maps and make campaign settings and house rules more than actual adventure notes.

Perversely, DMs don't seem to realise that they're buying the fun creation stuff (thinking more campaign setting than rules here) and leaving the hard work for themselves.  I think this is because they don't like to think about the possibilities collapsing either, and would rather lose themselves in a daydream of kingdoms and classes than worry about the nitty gritty, which is plot hooks and encounters.  No wonder D&D publishing is in such a weird fix.


----------



## pogre (Oct 10, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> Perversely, DMs don't seem to realise that they're buying the fun creation stuff (thinking more campaign setting than rules here) and leaving the hard work for themselves.  I think this is because they don't like to think about the possibilities collapsing either, and would rather lose themselves in a daydream of kingdoms and classes than worry about the nitty gritty, which is plot hooks and encounters.




I totally agree with you here. I own very few supplements and no world books. I love to buy adventures if for no other reason that to steal stat blocks.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It just seems the idea is discarded too quickly among publishers afraid that it's customers are trying to get something for nothing. If you look at even a portion of the replies I've gotten, the idea is repeatedly put forth that I'm trying to do something underhanded.




You know, while we're "discarding things too quickly", has it ever occured to you that we know the RPG business better than you? Maybe a little? 

This must be how Joe Montana feels when people on the street comment on his throwing mechanics (ok... Im not Joe Montana- that would be Chris Pramas- so maybe I should have said this is how Kelly Holcomb feels ).

Chuck


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 10, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> You know, while we're "discarding things too quickly", has it ever occured to you that we know the RPG business better than you? Maybe a little?




It's all theory though, unless someone (aside from GoO) does it, isn't it? Ars Magica was a grand experiment, but just like the example of WotC doesn't "work" because they're too big, Ars Magica doesn't work because it's a niche product among niche products. You may have more experience, but that doesn't automatically mean much in the long run. Maybe you took all your levels in Warrior instead of Expert for all I know?

The fact that game companies are almost always on the edge of bankruptcy doesn't exactly engender confidence in their knowledge of the market though. 

ETA: It seems to me that folks think WotC is successful in spite of themselves, rather than because of their business acumen. They're a huge company now for many reasons, but they don't pour money away for the thrill of it.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I don't care if D20 Mecha is the new industry standard, I only care that it's accessible to me. I'm not asking for an SRD to make publishers lives easier. I realize their business needs to be profitable, but they should likewise remember who they're selling to.




Let's not mince words.  You are asking for something for free, that the company that produces it would rather you pay for.  You have all the right in the world to not run out and buy Arcana Evolved (just as an example), and are equally free to therefore not buy supplements that follow it.  But Malhavoc should be under no pressure to give you all the "good parts" for free, so you can decide wether you'd deign to drop a few bucks on a smaller supplement with a very likley much smaller profit margin.  That's just asinine.  If you want to save yourself some money, try looking at previews on the web and in magazines, or go buy an inexpensive supplement *first*, and if you like what you see, go back and buy the core product.  Or don't.  But don't just stand there with your hand out feeling entitled.

On topic: I understand where CR is coming from, and I think i understand why he is coming from there -- as successful as D&D is in relation to other RPG publisher, they are likely suffering from the slow-down too, and the best way to combat that is to get more people playing the game and buying books.  So, if companies that produce good work -- like Green Ronin and Mongoose and Malhavoc -- would put their effort into supporting D&D, like they were 'supposed to', then D&D would be better off.  I get that, and it makes sense from WotC's perspective.  I just don't see how it substantially helps tose 3rd parties, UNLESS WotC makes some concessions, the biggest of which would be the ability to actually slap the D&D logo on their product and sell it through the same channels as WotC sells D&D books.  

Instead, it seems possible that WotC is abandoning the d20 market (not pulling the license or anything, but also not doing anything to help it out) and letting those other companies fend for themselves.  They believe they make a superior product (as well they should, regardless of whether it is always true) and so they are going to do it themselves.  And do you know what that means, them 'doing it themselves"?  it means hiring the same freelancers that produce the quality work from all the 3rd parties everyone is so rabid over.  because they can.  because they have the resources to do so.  So, when WotC decides to seriously support their game themselves -- rather than letting another company do it -- they are not only going to be pulling money out of those companies' pockets (there is only so much pie to go around, and despite what many people here at EN World seem to think, that D&D logo is an extremely powerful tool), they are very likely going to be stealing their talent as well.

this is of course my opnion, based on no facts at all, and probably wrong.  But I don't think it is implausible, and I don't think a 'Powered By D&D' license would hurt anyone.


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Lets say the core book has dwindled to selling 100 a month. Releasing the SRD cuts that to 50 a month. But, the product you release next sells 4,000 copies instead of 3,000.



Those are very impressive numbers that you just magically pulled out of your *** to prove your point. 

For an equally valid* counter-example, lets say the core book has dwindled to selling 100 a month.  Releasing the SRD cuts that to 10 a month.  But, the product you release next sells 3,050 copies instead of 3,000 copies. You lose an fortune and have books taking up space in the warehouse that you can't sell. 

*Actually, this counter-example is even more valid, because it's based on a real example, not on arbitrarily invented numbers and wishful thinking.  You seem determined to ignore the Ars Magica example, but it's the only real data we have.  It's also a decent seller, and no more a niche game than any other d20 rpg warranting its own core rulebook.



> So, let me repeat. Releasing an SRD say, 4 months after the Core Rules have been released, would contribute to future sales. It would also help people like me with a player base that's scattered over the USA.



So it's all about getting a player base of people who don't spend a dime on books.  Got it.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 10, 2005)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> And I doubt that releasing it as a pdf of the "full version" of the game would be significantly difference from releasing a SRD with the full game without the pretty layout.





I'm not sure where you'd get this idea.  There's a reason we all own the WotC cores even though there's a nice SRD available for free.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> _Holy Orders of the Stars_ is out now, and if you liked Towers, you should ilke this one. It's not era-specific, so it's just as useful for a War of the Lance or pre-Cataclysm game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It was my first setting, and though I left it in frustration years ago when TSR refused to do anything beyond rehashing the War of the Lance over and over, among other things, I have seen SP doing a really nice job with the license.  And I'll admit that  you guys seem to be getting better at it with every release.

I've now picked up Holy Order of the Stars, and will definitely check it out.

Now, if only you guys would do something for Taladas, I'd be happy   Time of the Dragon's one of the only 2nd Ed. supplements I keep out with my 3E stuff, because it was so cool.

Banshee 

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> For example, I like the flavor of some of the Swashbuckling Adventures supplements, and have bought them. I lack the basic rules from their D20 Core book, but since I'm not going to use the setting, it's a waste of money for me to buy that core book. An SRD would greatly increase the usability of the supplements I do buy, and I'd probably buy more. Eventually I'd probably buy the Core just because.




The Swashbuckling Adventures hardcover is useful all around.  I bought it when it first came out, and have got a fair amount of use out of it.  Some of the feats need to be watched if you want to use them in a regular D&D campaign, because they're written assuming a lack of magic etc.  But the book has a lot of good stuff in it.  Some interesting firearms rules, all the different schools of fencing, the various fencing feats, some of the classes like swashbuckler, courtier, and noble, among others.  You don't need to use Theah to use that book..

Banshee


----------



## Cam Banks (Oct 10, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Now, if only you guys would do something for Taladas, I'd be happy   Time of the Dragon's one of the only 2nd Ed. supplements I keep out with my 3E stuff, because it was so cool.




We'll have to wait until Chris Pierson has finished writing his Taladas trilogy before we put out any sourcebook on that popular fan-favorite setting. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> And this is because of the SRD, or because of exchange rates and such? I think GoO would have information on how the SRD affected sales of their products. For myself it contributed to purchasing Centauri Knights, the Stingy Anime Edition, Mecha and a few other books.
> 
> The difference with the Ars Magica release were a few, such as a new edition already announced, the release of a PDF with the full version of the game, and the general "niche" of Ars Magica. I'm not sure how any of this affected everything overall, but they aren't factors to ignore.




I doubt it would be exchange rates....otherwise that would mean all these other Canadian companies would be going out of business too because of exchange rates, and that's not happening.

I don't think that making their anime SRD would sink the company....but it might sink sales of BESM D20....and if they released SRDs for their other products, well, that would sink profits in all those lines as well.

It really angers me sometimes how shortsighted customers can be.  These guys aren't driving around in Ferraris.  They're not making tonnes of money in this industry, and people still want to get things for free.

I did see one promising thing idea....RPG Objects seems to offer a PDF copy of their products for free if you purchase the print version.  That's kind of a cool idea.  That way you don't have to carry the whole book with you if you have a laptop, or can easily print out character sheets etc.  To me, that's fair, if I've paid for the book already.  Too bad I learned about that *after* I threw out my receipt for Legends of Excalibur..

Hopefully GOO can turn things around.  I'm hearing really good things about the Game of Thrones RPG.  This may finally be the version of the rules that fixes most of the problems I have with pure D&D.  But now I've heard the book is delayed until November at least.  If they're coming up with innovative products like that, I'd hate to see them go under.

Banshee


----------



## Hussar (Oct 10, 2005)

Whoo, looks like I opened a fair can o' worms here.  

Actually, as I said a while ago, I never expect anyone to give away an entire book for free.  As has been said, it's stupid for a small company (or large one) to do that.  I can agree with that entirely.  But, that's not the only option here.

Here's an idea.

Take five or ten d20 publishers - doesn't matter which ones.  Each of them types up a five page .rtf document full of rules that they can live with becoming part of the SRD.  Doesn't matter from which supplements, so long as it's OGC kosher.  Every six months, or a year, they email that .rtf file to Sovelier Sage or the Hypertext SRD and ask those guys to make an addendum to their site.  Call it the ((Company Name)) Appendix.  

A five page writeup is an evening's work, so it's not like its too onerous.  It makes all sorts of people happy, including other publishers who can now use some of those rules in thier own books without reinventing the wheel.  Now I can make a D20 Sailing Ships supplement with 25 different ships using the Broadsides!! combat rules easily.  Free advertising for Living Imagination (not that they would care too much anymore) and better product for me.  And, as an added bonus, I don't have to come up with yet another ship to ship combat ruleset to add to the pile that already exists.

I can appreciate that adding an entire book to the SRD would be a very difficult and time consuming task.  I don't think anyone actually wants that though.  There's nothing stopping an incremental addition to the SRD that can be done fairly easily.  Saying that it can't be done because its too difficult is ignoring that it can be done, but, not everything can be done.  I don't think there is a need for everything.  Just a showcase of whatever you think is groovy enough to become a game standard.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I bought their Stingy Gamer Edition, which is also a neat idea.
> How did your SRD sell, in general terms?
> 
> Also, I've been gaming since the 80's, yeah. Earliest product I bought new was Dragon #90, which drew me in. The internet has changed the industry a lot though.




Why should that material be available for free though?  I don't get it.  They did the work.  You want to enjoy the product.  Why wouldn't you pay for it?

Now.....I do think it makes sense that the companies should have some form of network or whatever, where they can go to each other for easy to reach SRD data for products they've produced....so that they can work together...ie. if one company wants to create modules for a setting another company created.  That, to me, would make sense.  But not just providing all that material for free to the public.

Your statement about the fact that WotC doesn't take into account that WotC is a *much* larger company than most D20 publishers, with far higher budgets, larger staff, and a certain amount of history and power as the owners of the D&D brand, and the most well established companies producing products for that brand.  The D20 publishers are like fleas in comparison.  To expect them to give the same level of support is a little unrealistic, I think.  Most of the companies I've seen and buy products from do support what they write though.  My only wish is that there would be more modules.  Heck, even if modules were written just as PDFs, I'd still find them useful..

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> On topic: I understand where CR is coming from, and I think i understand why he is coming from there -- as successful as D&D is in relation to other RPG publisher, they are likely suffering from the slow-down too, and the best way to combat that is to get more people playing the game and buying books.  So, if companies that produce good work -- like Green Ronin and Mongoose and Malhavoc -- would put their effort into supporting D&D, like they were 'supposed to', then D&D would be better off.  I get that, and it makes sense from WotC's perspective.  I just don't see how it substantially helps tose 3rd parties, UNLESS WotC makes some concessions, the biggest of which would be the ability to actually slap the D&D logo on their product and sell it through the same channels as WotC sells D&D books.




Problem is, that in the absence of these 3rd party companies displaying actual ingenuity, we wouldn't have Midnight or Oathbound, or Hamunaptra, or Black Company, or Iron Kingdoms, or tonnes of other really cool settings or products.  WotC has already said they don't want to create settings anymore, because it splits the fan base.  And I (and many other players or DMs) don't find the settings they are currently publishing innovative/interesting enough.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.  The WotC of 2005 is not the TSR of 1997.  There are good sides and bad sides to that.  One of the bad sides is that they're less willing to take chances, and do something really different.

I don't know about you, but I *want* to see this innovation coming from the 3rd party companies, because I've come to realize over the last few years that I can no longer expect it from WotC.

And at the end of the day, I have a full-time job, a dog, a fiance, and a shortage of time to come up with much of that cool stuff myself, so I depend on published products in order to keep running my game.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> We'll have to wait until Chris Pierson has finished writing his Taladas trilogy before we put out any sourcebook on that popular fan-favorite setting.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




You know....I really disliked many of the more recent DL novels.  But I have to say, Blades of the Tiger was one of the *best* DL books I've read in a long, long time.  Hopefully the next book will come soon.  I haven't seen any data on a name, when to expect it, etc.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Whoo, looks like I opened a fair can o' worms here.
> 
> Actually, as I said a while ago, I never expect anyone to give away an entire book for free.  As has been said, it's stupid for a small company (or large one) to do that.  I can agree with that entirely.  But, that's not the only option here.
> 
> ...




So......a little like Monte Cook's "Best D20 of 2005" book, or whatever it was called?

Banshee


----------



## Hussar (Oct 10, 2005)

Yeah, exactly.  But, instead of a single publication for the first time since 3.5 was released, how about a steady stream?  I don't even mind too much if it was not commonly available to the public.  That would be fine.  I can see the reasons for not wanting to give stuff away for free.  But, I think my idea would be a little easier to do than cranking out an entire book.  Just a thought.

One other thought.  I've seen a couple of times that a d20 supported SRD would cause publishers to close up their books and stop making them OGC.  I really have to ask, "So what?"  I'm sorry, but, there has been so little cross pollination between publishers that the books might as well be entirely closed content anyway.  As I look at the dozen or so Sword and Sorcery books, three AEG books, 2 Mystic Eye Games books, and a handful of .pdf's, I see pretty much zero content from other publishers within any of those books.  Granted, my collection is hardly encompassing, but, you'd think out of two dozen or so publications, I would see at least ONE idea in a book from another publisher.  Really, if Mongoose cranked out its next four books entirely closed content, what difference would it make?  There's already almost zero cross pollination going on anyway.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yeah, exactly.  But, instead of a single publication for the first time since 3.5 was released, how about a steady stream?  I don't even mind too much if it was not commonly available to the public.  That would be fine.  I can see the reasons for not wanting to give stuff away for free.  But, I think my idea would be a little easier to do than cranking out an entire book.  Just a thought.
> 
> One other thought.  I've seen a couple of times that a d20 supported SRD would cause publishers to close up their books and stop making them OGC.  I really have to ask, "So what?"  I'm sorry, but, there has been so little cross pollination between publishers that the books might as well be entirely closed content anyway.  As I look at the dozen or so Sword and Sorcery books, three AEG books, 2 Mystic Eye Games books, and a handful of .pdf's, I see pretty much zero content from other publishers within any of those books.  Granted, my collection is hardly encompassing, but, you'd think out of two dozen or so publications, I would see at least ONE idea in a book from another publisher.  Really, if Mongoose cranked out its next four books entirely closed content, what difference would it make?  There's already almost zero cross pollination going on anyway.




Monster Manual II has two monsters in it from Sword and Sorcery books.

The Witch's Handbook from Green Ronin features the ritual spellcasting system from Sword and Sorcery's Relics & Rituals I.

The book "Feats" by AEG has feats from numerous other D20 publishers (including AEG) all assembled in one place.

I've seen those ritual rules from Sword and Sorcery used somewhere else as where, though I can't remember what book they were in.

Those are just some examples.

I will admit though, that it's not as often as I'd like.  I want to point out, however, that entirely using one company's set of rules on a topic isn't always a good idea.  As someone else pointed out, there are like 5 books detailing sailing and naval vessels.  However, if you look at them (at least the three I'm familiar with), there's Swashbuckling Adventures, Stormwrack, a Fantasy Flight Games book on the topic, and Corsair/Skull & Bones.  Each of those has their own advantages.  I like Swashbuckling Adventures for the more "realistic" take.  The ships have more hp, there are detailed rules for cannonfire, and they've got a feats system for improving ships.  Skull & Bones has better ship to ship combat rules, as well as excellent rules for similating crew satisfaction, etc.  Stormwrack has some ship types, and simplified rules for ship combat, as well as a healthy dose of D&D "cheese".  Fantasy Flight Games' take on the topic has details on ships of the different races, as well as rules on combat by ship etc.  But I don't like it's take on the topic as well as Swashbuckling Adventures or Skull & Bones.  So, if you're going to choose one book to use, how do you determine which one to make the "standard"?  One person may like the "cheese" of canons that spit lightning, whereas another wants a ship that can throw 410 lbs of iron at another ship with a broadside.  Some elements of it though, such as the formatting of ship stats, for example, are something that could be made more consistent.  Everyone's got their preference again there.  I prefer Swashbuckling Adventures, because in that system a ship has like 1500 hp, whereas in Skull & Bones it's like 200, and I've got problems with imagining a high-level fighter wrecking a warship with a longsword in a few rounds.  So how do you choose?

Banshee


----------



## Hussar (Oct 10, 2005)

Well, I suppose the simple answer would be that an expanded SRD could include rules for the same topic from more than one source.  There's no problem with having various alternate rules in the same SRD.  I would welcome that actually.  Having three versions of the Samurai PrC isn't a bad thing.  As I type this, there are several variant rules appearing in the Hypertext SRD.  That means that there are two sets of rules (at least) for every variant that appears.  Why limit it to 2?  Six different rulesets would be fine.  Granted, that negates the idea of a game standard, however, it does allow different companies to showcase their work in a comparitive way.

Isn't funny that people talk about how WOTC isn't supporting d20 when, of the three examples named above, one of them is from a WOTC book.  But, I think we agree on this point that there should be a heck of a lot more cross-pollination than there is.  That right there makes earlier comments about the d20 industry not supporting the ideas behind the OGL somewhat telling.


----------



## Yair (Oct 10, 2005)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *Actually, this counter-example is even more valid, because it's based on a real example, not on arbitrarily invented numbers and wishful thinking.  You seem determined to ignore the Ars Magica example, but it's the only real data we have.  It's also a decent seller, and no more a niche game than any other d20 rpg warranting its own core rulebook.



Actually, Ars Magica 5e is significantly more successful than predicted, which to some extent is likely the result of the free pdf thing, but even Atlas doesn't know just how much the free pdf contributed. There is just no way to isolate its effect. 
If you want to attribute all the "extra" sales to the free pdf, including the impressive sales of accessories such as True Lineages who sold out a few months after publishing, I believe the ovreall effect of the free pdf was positive for the company. Of course, you can just as validly claim the free pdf had no substantial impact. The data is just not there.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 10, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Problem is, that in the absence of these 3rd party companies displaying actual ingenuity, we wouldn't have Midnight or Oathbound, or Hamunaptra, or Black Company, or Iron Kingdoms, or tonnes of other really cool settings or products.  WotC has already said they don't want to create settings anymore, because it splits the fan base.  And I (and many other players or DMs) don't find the settings they are currently publishing innovative/interesting enough.




We have 2 discussions going on here: what we as gamers might want to see, which may or may not have anything to do with the realities of the publishing business; and what WotC wanted from 3rd party publishers versus what 3rd party publishers actually found to be successful for them.  Charles Ryan's comments about quality aside, it is the latter issue that brought up the whole issue in the first place, i think, and the impetus behind WotC jumping back into producing adventures seriously.  Ultimately, the point of the 20STL was to sell more PHBs, not to engineer the creation of a thousand 'innovative' (or not) settings.  Unfortunately, the d20STL didn't enforce that goal.  Too bad for WotC.

I for one like the variety of products I see, but that doesn't mean that I can't see why WotC would want to set about bringing back those customers that have fled to 3rd party OGL type games and publishers.  And I think that if WotC really wants to do that, they have the resources and the talent (and the resources to gte the talent) to do just that.  i mean, if you are making 3 cents a word writing for Mongoose, and WotC offers you 5, and you have kids and a mortgage and car payments, who are you going to write for?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 10, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Id definitely play the game and buy a 15 dollar supplement, if only they'd give me the 50 dollar core book for free
> 
> Chuck




Big problem with that is outside of maybe the character sheets, I don't think they actually have any $15.00 supplements. The adventure packs start at $25 and move up from there.


----------



## Thomas Percy (Oct 10, 2005)

It looks like WotC is not happy with OGL (or what 3rd publishers make with OGL). 
They (WotC) can take away OGL when they will put forth 4th edition (or just the same month when they will loose money due to competion rulebooks greater success). It will be end of most of 3rd publishers. 
One of the ways of prevent it is to make WotC happy and do what they want (learn to make more money on adventures).
The success of mother-company (WotC) is a success of every 3rd publisher. 

And about free, optional, clearly marked as not-official version of SRD with 3rd publishers rules... from a point of view of half-hobby webpage (with nothing to loose) it's a good idea.


----------



## Belen (Oct 10, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Big problem with that is outside of maybe the character sheets, I don't think they actually have any $15.00 supplements. The adventure packs start at $25 and move up from there.




Bingo.  Really expensive supplements with no cheaper books to support them.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 10, 2005)

Thomas Percy said:
			
		

> The success of mother-company (WotC) is a success of every 3rd publisher.



"_One publisher to rule them all..._"


----------



## philreed (Oct 10, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Also, I've been gaming since the 80's, yeah. Earliest product I bought new was Dragon #90, which drew me in. The internet has changed the industry a lot though.




And there was no SRD file in the 80s. You bought the books. Your friends bought the books.


This is another case where WotC releasing the SRD -- for publishers -- is making some people think everything should be free. The SRD exists so that publishers will create products that then support the products the SRD was built from.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> The SRD exists so that publishers will create products that then support the products the SRD was built from.





I don't know why anyone would dispute that fact.  I will add that when a "fan" builds a website and puts up a feat of their own creation they are acting as a defacto "publisher" in that case and in relation to your truism that I quoted.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Oct 10, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Bingo.  Really expensive supplements with no cheaper books to support them.




You and Joe are rich, so quit complainin'!


----------



## Belen (Oct 10, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> You and Joe are rich, so quit complainin'!




Not at all.  I just get all my Wizards books for free, so I have some spare money to spend on 3rd party publishers.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 10, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I don't know why anyone would dispute that fact.  I will add that when a "fan" builds a website and puts up a feat of their own creation they are acting as a defacto "publisher" in that case and in relation to your truism that I quoted.



But there are some who are disputing it. Right here in this very thread. There is at least one person who has been saying that he thinks SRDs (plural) are part of support for products, support that should be given away for free to the public.

Mark, the rest of this post is most definitely not aimed at you.  It is meant as just a generalized comment on things.


A few weeks ago I started a thread where I had stated that the OGL had failed in general. I was derided, laughed at, and argued with over my opinion (no real biggie, I normally have thick skin hehe). Then along comes Merric post something that Charles Ryan stated over on the WotC forums. And you know what? Mr. Ryan's comments actually support my opinion that the OGL has failed in some respects.

There were several motivations and goals for the creation of the OGL (and the SRD to go along with it). First of all, it was to allow other companies to produce products that support D&D (not d20, but D&D). Products that WotC did not want to do because they felt that those products would not produce enough of a return to make them worthwhile (i.e. adventures and such).

Also, the OGL (in conjunction with the d20STL, which was envisioned and created at the same time) was to allow companies to create and share the mechanics that they came up with to produce a better system overall. And to do all of this with as little direct supervision from WotC as possible.

THe OGL was meant to reduce the total number of systems on the market overall, by getting companies to switch over to using d20 (thus ultimately supporting D&D in their eyes).

Now these are quite likely not the only reasons, but they are the three that stand out the most. And* in the long* run they failed, all three of them (to one degree or another). (the bolded portion is important here..)

Now, how did they fail, you ask?

1) Support of D&D through 3rd party products - When first placed under the OGL, the number of companies that jumped on the bandwagon, or came into existance (and jumping on the bandwagon) was higher than expected, by several orders of magnitude. I can see you sitting there saying that that means it was successful, but sorry, your wrong. Something can fail by not doing well enough, but something can also fail by doing too well, as in this case.

So many people jumped into publishing that the market was very quickly flooded with product, the vast majority of which was outright garbage. You had multiple books on just about any topic.  And guess what? Relatively few of them were the adventures that WotC had been hoping for. There were at least a thousand products out for 3.0, and out of those thousand, you had maybe a few dozen adventures. The vast majority of products were of the type that WotC itself was planning on doing. There was also a small number who went in different directions and started experimenting (M&M, Spycraft, etc.)

So, out of so many products, very few were doing what WotC wanted them to do. That means that this goal failed.

2) Cross-polization of development - This is another failure. Those products that include material from products produced by other companies stand out as the exceptions. They are not the rule. The total number is just a tiny fraction of the total number of d20 products produced and IIRC, none of them are from before 3.5 was released (I could be wrong about this, am just saying that I don't remember any).

Thus, this goal also failed overall as well.

3) Reduction of the number of systems - Did not happen, plain and simple. While some companies toyed with d20, or did dual-statted material, most of the companies that existed before the OGL never touched it, or kept it completely seperate from their normal system (such as White Wolf did). New systems continued to be released (HARP, Omni Sytem, Dogs in the Vineyard, Meddling Kids, etc.). Revisions of older systems took place (GURPS). Systems that that were thought to be dead came back (WEG's d6 system). Thus this goal also failed.


Now of these three goals, the one that WotC is currently addressing is the first one, the support products. WotC is getting back into doing adventures. That alone says that WotC thinks that #1 in my list has failed. Here is Mr. Ryan's quote from the first page again so that you can read it in context with what I have just said.


			
				Charles Ryan said:
			
		

> As many people on these boards know, when third edition and the d20 License launched, we thought a lot of third parties would see adventures for D&D as a great opportunity. WotC published a spate of them early on (the adventure path, Return to the Temple) to sort of get the ball rolling, but after that we left the category to the third-party publishers.
> 
> Unfortunately, over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make (and make better than anyone else). As a result, the adventure market has been largely empty for the past few years. (And it's probably no coincidence that many d20 publishers seem to be struggling these days.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 10, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I don't know why anyone would dispute that fact.






			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> But there are some who are disputing it.




Perhaps, but I don't know why. 




			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> Mark, the rest of this post is most definitely not aimed at you.  It is meant as just a generalized comment on things.




I have no doubt.


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 10, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Actually, Ars Magica 5e is significantly more successful than predicted, which to some extent is likely the result of the free pdf thing, but even Atlas doesn't know just how much the free pdf contributed. There is just no way to isolate its effect.
> If you want to attribute all the "extra" sales to the free pdf, including the impressive sales of accessories such as True Lineages who sold out a few months after publishing, I believe the ovreall effect of the free pdf was positive for the company. Of course, you can just as validly claim the free pdf had no substantial impact. The data is just not there.



I don't dispute that the free pdf of 4th edition may have boosted sales of 5th edition, but that's a completely different scenario than what we're talking about here.  5th edition isn't a supplement for 4th edition.  There's a big difference between releasing a book for free to boost sales of its supplements at the expense of core book sales, and releasing a book for free to boost sales of a future edition that invalidates the book given for free.

When releasing a new edition of a game, a publisher has very little to lose by giving away the old edition for free as advertising.  The old edition's sales are going to drop off to nothing in a short while anyway, and sales of the new core book have a higher profit margin than supplements.  But when a game edition is still alive, and supplements are being made, a publisher stands to lose a lot.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 10, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> You and Joe are rich, so quit complainin'!




I used to do reviews for Shadis and Pyramid because they helped pay to support the hobby prior to publishers actually sending me stuff.

And I buy most of my Warhammer stuff from Amazon.com or Buy.com. At it's retail price, I wouldn't be able to afford it and even then, I've stopped buying the adventurers because while I can justify $10 on a crappy d20 adventure, I can't justify $25 on a crappy Warhammer adventure and they have not been of high quality in my opinion.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 10, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> And guess what? Relatively few of them were the adventures that WotC had been hoping for. There were at least a thousand products out for 3.0, and out of those thousand, you had maybe a few dozen adventures.




Sorry, but you are wrong. I own at least 500 hundred titles of the first d20 books that came out (don't ask how much money I put into that), and there are significantly more than "a few dozen adventures" in my extensive collection.

Most of them are not very good. But they were there.

I'm not at home now so I don't have access to my library, but take FFG as an example [EDIT NO 2: I was actually thinking of Alderac, but I think FFG had those small adventures as well]. Their short adventures came out early, and there were lots of them. Necromancer had adventures out, some that turned into classics like Rappan Athuk, and Necropolis later on. Come to think of it, Nerco alone has "a few dozen" adventures for 3.0, if I'm not mistaken, which I might be. Privateer Press had their Witchfire-trilogy out, and Fast Forward turned out their initial trilogy (which became history for being crap on a level not seen before). Hmmm ... the Freeport trilogy from Green Ronin, Mystic Eye Games with the Pit of Loch Durnan stuff ... the list goes on and on and on. 

So if your argument for item 1 on your list hinges on there being just "a few dozen adventures" available from 3rd parties for 3.0, I think you should fine tune that a bit. 

 

EDIT: The situation for 3.5 is different, and I do not have as many adventures for 3.5 in my library.

/M


----------



## Reynard (Oct 10, 2005)

For the first years of d20, there *were* lots of adventures and other support materials in the market.  And guess what?  At that time, you didn't hear WotC complaining that the 3rd party publishers weren't 'doing their job'.  Leap forward o the present when complete OGL games have overtaken the d20 market, WotC is complaining.  it really isn't that difficult to make the connection.

What I wonder is how does WotC intend to make adventures profitable?  Obviously, there is an issue with the margins on modules, else d20 never would have happened in the first place.  Now, going back in, WotC must have a plan to make those modules more profitable.  I am not sure, though I think one way to do it might be to make them 'complete packages' -- i.e. include battle mat scale maps, counters or at least a list of the D&D minis to be used (meaning, of course, that you'll only see encounters with creatures that have had a mini), and integrated player handouts.  Perhaps they could even build them in such away that there is little to no prep time -- page 1 is an overview and/or flow chart, lots of boxed text, Core rule page references for rules, etc...


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 10, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> So if your argument for item 1 on your list hinges on there being just "a few dozen adventures" available from 3rd parties for 3.0, I think you should fine tune that a bit.



Yeah... Yeah... Be a stikler for details... 

Seriously, I wasn't trying to be very accurate with my number, just trying to illustrate a point. What I do know is that for 3.0 there were a lot of other source books out compared to adventures. Even if there were 200 adventures for the 1,000+ 3.0 books released, that is still only 20%, at the most. And no, I do not have the actual numbers.

The last time I tried to count the number of d20 products (this was close to 2 years ago), there were close to 1,700 products, and that was just going from what I found listed here on EN World.

I have no idea how many product there are now....

But in any case, 1,700 products for 1 game system (and its variants, yes). Phil Reed had all of 16 products when I did that count. He alone has likely put that number above the 2,000 mark


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I for one like the variety of products I see, but that doesn't mean that I can't see why WotC would want to set about bringing back those customers that have fled to 3rd party OGL type games and publishers.  And I think that if WotC really wants to do that, they have the resources and the talent (and the resources to gte the talent) to do just that.  i mean, if you are making 3 cents a word writing for Mongoose, and WotC offers you 5, and you have kids and a mortgage and car payments, who are you going to write for?




Ok, we can agree here.  I consider myself fairly open-minded.  I'd be willing to look at more WotC products *if* they were made to cater to the type of gaming I like.  Which isn't the "kick teh door down, steal the monster's treasure, and kill the beast" type of game that seems to be the core D&D sentiment since 3E started.  This is one reason I've switched more and more to 3rd party games rather than WotC.  If WotC made some products intended for a more mature (according to my definition) style of game, I'd definitely take a look.

So, if they want to create modules, great.  But if they're "kick the door down" style adventures, then I'm not interested, and they still won't get my money.  Although it was flawed in places, I actally liked "Prophecies of the Dragon", though my group didn't finish it.  We did enjoy it though.  It wasn't all about killing monsters.  There was a point to it.  And plenty of roleplaying opportunities.  That's the kind of module I like.

I guess time will tell.

Banshee


----------



## philreed (Oct 10, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> What I wonder is how does WotC intend to make adventures profitable?




My guess would be minis-related products like the new Fane of the Drow release.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 11, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I'm not at home now so I don't have access to my library, but take FFG as an example [EDIT NO 2: I was actually thinking of Alderac, but I think FFG had those small adventures as well]. Their short adventures came out early, and there were lots of them. Necromancer had adventures out, some that turned into classics like Rappan Athuk, and Necropolis later on. Come to think of it, Nerco alone has "a few dozen" adventures for 3.0, if I'm not mistaken, which I might be. Privateer Press had their Witchfire-trilogy out, and Fast Forward turned out their initial trilogy (which became history for being crap on a level not seen before). Hmmm ... the Freeport trilogy from Green Ronin, Mystic Eye Games with the Pit of Loch Durnan stuff ... the list goes on and on and on.
> /M




This may be true.....but some of them didn't do enough.  I love Privateer.  I love the setting.  The Witch Blade modules came out before the setting did though....in fact, I suspect that they were so successful they spurred the company to develop the setting.  But since then, there have been no further adventures.  They're talking about re-releasing the trilogy now that the setting with all of its rules etc. has been released.  But that's not the same.  Where are the new adventures?  It's evident there's a market for them.

Same thing for Midnight?  The setting has done well enough that there are tonnes of other supplements....I mean, there have been something like 6-8 supplements, including one module that takes you up to lvl 5.  But no other adventures so far.  Why not an adventure taking characters from 5 to 10 now?  More of a campaign package?  The setting's selling well enough to merit a 2nd edition of the hardcover, which makes it the first D&D/D20 setting to do so, i think.

I think Sovereign Press and Sword and Sorcery (Scarred Lands) are the only companies to really do so.  Sovereign Press hasn't released too many, but from what I can see, there module trilogy consists of big books that can probably sustain a group for a good 8 months of gaming each.

Those are the kinds of adventures I'd personally like to see.  Bigger books with longer campaign style adventure chains for these new settings.  Even if one product a year was one of these, and the rest were supplements, it would help us DMs to keep our groups running those settings and getting more use out of them, which can increase the chance that our players spend money on the more player-friendly supplements.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 11, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> What I wonder is how does WotC intend to make adventures profitable?  Obviously, there is an issue with the margins on modules, else d20 never would have happened in the first place.  Now, going back in, WotC must have a plan to make those modules more profitable.  I am not sure, though I think one way to do it might be to make them 'complete packages' -- i.e. include battle mat scale maps, counters or at least a list of the D&D minis to be used (meaning, of course, that you'll only see encounters with creatures that have had a mini), and integrated player handouts.  Perhaps they could even build them in such away that there is little to no prep time -- page 1 is an overview and/or flow chart, lots of boxed text, Core rule page references for rules, etc...




I don't get the feeling that it's the margins on modules that are the problem.  They're probably no more or less expensive to make than a full campaign setting.  But the problem is who buys adventures?  DMs.  And the typical group has 4-5 players, plus a DM.  So the module is only appealing to 15-20% of the gamers out there, which means that out of the total "pool" of GMs, it has to appeal to a much higher proportion of them to generate the sales necessitated to turn a profit.

That's my understanding of the situation though.

I think the companies (WotC included) need to look at modules like loss leaders.  They have to acknowledge that they may not make as much money on them as they do on supplements and campaign settings, but they're vital to the industry as a whole.

And this is probably far easier for WotC to do than it is for the 3rd party publishers, since because of their size....though I have no idea if this is right, or completely off-base.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 11, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> My guess would be minis-related products like the new Fane of the Drow release.




Which again is something many of us aren't interested in.  I don't want to pay money for some battle scenarios.  I want a plot.  I want opportunities for things other than a keyed map with some encounters written up.  If WotC's answer to the lack of adventures is the above, then they may still be barking up the wrong tree.

Banshee


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 11, 2005)

*SRD Advice*

Write it first. Start work on your project by doing up an outline. As you work on the outline decide on the mechanics you'll be including, both from other sources and original. When you've decided on the mechanics to be included write up a project bible; a project SRD those who work on the project will follow. Be sure to enforce project discipline, but be ready to change things when problems show up and things need to be changed.

Keep the SRD to the basics. Just the mechanics, save the rest for the project. The project is where you incorporate all the stuff that (one hopes) leads people to buy it. You have a nifty new Prestige Class, the project SRD is where you write up the mechanics and basic description. The full description, how the PRC fits into the project, their history, how the project's society views the PRC, that sort of thing, is put into the project.

Think of the project SRD has the framework that supports the project. The project is built upon the project SRD, instead of the project SRD being extracted from the project.

And make sure you add enough value that people are willing to pay for the project. Unique spell names for example, the sort of thing that establishes a feel to the porject that gets people intriqued, looking forward to running or adventuring in the world of the project.

It's not a guaranteed gambit, but the better you do it the better your chances.

BTW, if you still don't succeed ask yourself this question, "What did we do wrong?" From that comes the question, "How can we do better?" Sales may not be the best feedback on your work, but it's a damn sight better than most. When sales are bad maybe you should rethink your approach and try something different. And just as important, know the audience you're aiming for. Write for that audience, and be sure to make as clear as possible what you intend to achieve and who your project is aimed at.

Example: _Boggarts in the Barn: A Grossly Unbalanced and Blatantly Unfair Adventure for 1 or more players of any level_. A scenario intended to make even major deities tear their hair out in frustration, but solvable even by 1st level characters who use their brains for something besides skull filler. Intended for DMs and players who enjoy intrigue, conspiracy, negotiation, and the occasional bout of battle. You're looking for a wargame, this is not for you.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 11, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> And there was no SRD file in the 80s. You bought the books. Your friends bought the books.



The player base has changed considerably too. My games are online now, so book sharing is no longer possible.


> This is another case where WotC releasing the SRD -- for publishers -- is making some people think everything should be free. The SRD exists so that publishers will create products that then support the products the SRD was built from.



They created the OGL and SRD for publishers, they put it online for everyone. To believe that the SRD is only for publishers is a bit self centered. It is a resource that WotC has made available to everyone that wants it.

And again, to say I want material for free is simply misrepresenting what I said throughout. If you want to debate whether an SRD can fall under product support, fine, but to say I want free material is just an invention of those who don't want to understand what I'm saying.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 11, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> 2) Cross-polization of development - This is another failure. Those products that include material from products produced by other companies stand out as the exceptions. They are not the rule. The total number is just a tiny fraction of the total number of d20 products produced and IIRC, none of them are from before 3.5 was released (I could be wrong about this, am just saying that I don't remember any).
> 
> Thus, this goal also failed overall as well.




I'll go a step further, (and this goes under #1 too I guess) but it seems like companies don't even build on their own products.

Take WotC as an example, the books are to require minimal material (or, no material) other than the Core's (i.e. the SRD). So, you'll see a psionic feat or four, but not a whole lot of material.

The other publishers don't really support past D20 stuff, it's rare for material to build on previous material, unless it's a totally seperate OGL Game (like, M&M products all build off M&M core, obviously). They've gone so far in making sure you don't require 30 different books, and that everything is modular, that I think there's little sense of an evolving system in most OGL/D20/D&D stuff.

That's part of why the D20 Glut was so bad, IMO. Those early books you bought haven't been advanced on. There may be an alternative system for naval battles, but no one has invested in one and added to it and grown it and such. So instead of adding to past successes, we get alternatives. If the earlier material were SRD'd, and built on, I think there'd be advancement. Instead we eventually get a PDF copy of the ancient book.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 11, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I think Sovereign Press and Sword and Sorcery (Scarred Lands) are the only companies to really do so.  Sovereign Press hasn't released too many, but from what I can see, there module trilogy consists of big books that can probably sustain a group for a good 8 months of gaming each.



Soveriegn's mega campaign is three books (book 1 I have, book 2 I need, book 3 isn't out yet). It's very good overall, though I had several problems with it, nothing major. A couple players couldn't get past their DL bias though, so that campaign died.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 11, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The player base has changed considerably too. My games are online now, so book sharing is no longer possible.
> 
> They created the OGL and SRD for publishers, they put it online for everyone. To believe that the SRD is only for publishers is a bit self centered. It is a resource that WotC has made available to everyone that wants it.
> 
> And again, to say I want material for free is simply misrepresenting what I said throughout. If you want to debate whether an SRD can fall under product support, fine, but to say I want free material is just an invention of those who don't want to understand what I'm saying.




This is true....WotC even pointed out that those who were against the inclusion of 3.5 could use the SRD.  I personally refused to purchase the 3 new core books, in order to "vote with my wallet".  I have used the SRD for those updates that I wanted to include in my game.

Banshee


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 11, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'll go a step further, (and this goes under #1 too I guess) but it seems like companies don't even build on their own products.




The reason books tend not to require more than the core rules is simple economics- if a book requires the core rules, your potential audience is everyone who plays. If your book requires the core rules plus the Psionics Handbook (a subset of those who own the Core Rules), your potential audience is a subset of that subset.

In effect you're narrowing your market share with each additional book built upon.

Even if you have a strong brand loyalty this eventually catches up with you. 

Look at AEG's Shadowforce Archer line.

A great line to be sure, and well supported by any measure. But at some point you reach a level of diminishing returns where you pull the plug on the setting and reboot with Spycraft 2.0 (in fact you could argue that Spycraft 1.0 and the SFA setting got a "lifespan boost" by having the Modern gaming genre to themselves for so long but that's another comment for another thread )

This is a business model that White Wolf more or less perfected and has been used by some of the more savvy d20 companies such as AEG and Green Ronin.

Chuck


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 11, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> The reason books tend not to require more than the core rules is simple economics- if a book requires the core rules, your potential audience is everyone who plays. If your book requires the core rules plus the Psionics Handbook (a subset of those who own the Core Rules), your potential audience is a subset of that subset.
> 
> In effect you're narrowing your market share with each additional book built upon.
> 
> Even if you have a strong brand loyalty this eventually catches up with you.



Right, but I think the current tendency is the other end of the spectrum. I'd think there's a happy medium somewhere in there, but the time span and investment of products probably isn't Tinkering Friendly.

I could see how not burning out the market by requiring a lot of books would prolong things between edition resets, but then we end up with 10 versions of the same thing, and limited advancement, to an extent.

Though it is funny to imagine a meeting "Hey, lets do a book on naval combat!"
"We probably shouldn't, there's already 5 systems out there..."
"and one of them is ours..."


----------



## Hussar (Oct 11, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Though it is funny to imagine a meeting "Hey, lets do a book on naval combat!"
> "We probably shouldn't, there's already 5 systems out there..."
> "and one of them is ours..."




LOL

I think the point has been made though.  Without a central storehouse for basic alternative rules, you cannot get past the idea that you are presenting alternatives, rather than additions. IMHO, Mythusmage hit the nail on the head quite well.  What he outlines does not entail a great amount of extra work for publishers and yet provides a pretty solid method for an expanding SRD.

Heck, most products on the market today already provide free previews in the form of downloadable pdf's.  It's not like what Mythusmage has said is all that much different.  Instead of being a free download on a company website, make it a free part of the SRD.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 21, 2007)

SOrry for the threadomancy, but, I thought this was interesting.

We've known that the modules are coming for almost a year before they hit the shelves.  And they hit pretty well IMO.  Funnily enough, many of the predictions in the thread did not materialize.  WOTC made modules profitable, not by tying them to DDM, but by actually innovating the module and making them easier to run.

A little blast from the past.


----------



## Krug (Mar 21, 2007)

Isn't there an overload of adventures already? I mean Dungeon puts out 3-4 adventures a magazine.


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, many of the predictions in the thread did not materialize.  WOTC made modules profitable, not by tying them to DDM, but by actually innovating the module and making them easier to run.




What a surprise. ENWorld is usually _very_ accurate in predictions.









NOT!


----------



## Sir Elton (Mar 22, 2007)

Charles Ryan said:

"My hat is off to those companies that have made unique product lines and found a place for themselves. But for every one of them, there are twenty that didn't. (Remember, from where I sit, I see the entire d20 spectrum--not just the companies that do well enough to develop a vocal following on EN World.) Those twenty have choked the RPG supply chain with product that doesn't move because it doesn't address a need or do anything better than what we do."

Still, I'd like to see Wizards of the Coast try to do something far off left field as a one shot.  Then, maybe I can consider Wizards doing it better than a d20 company.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2007)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan said:
> 
> "My hat is off to those companies that have made unique product lines and found a place for themselves. But for every one of them, there are twenty that didn't. (Remember, from where I sit, I see the entire d20 spectrum--not just the companies that do well enough to develop a vocal following on EN World.) Those twenty have choked the RPG supply chain with product that doesn't move because it doesn't address a need or do anything better than what we do."
> 
> Still, I'd like to see Wizards of the Coast try to do something far off left field as a one shot.  Then, maybe I can consider Wizards doing it better than a d20 company.




Tome of Magic fits that bill pretty nicely.  Three completely original caster mechanics.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 22, 2007)

Are the adventures really profitable for WotC or is it that they had to fill a particular vaccum in support for their own product and didn't really have any other options but to publish them?

And wasn't it WotC that originally claimed adventures weren't profitable?

The only modules I've heard real buzz about are the revisits of classics they are doing like Expedition to Ravenloft.  

The same copies of Red Hand of Doom, Gates of Slaughtergarde, and the "Fantastic Locations" modules have been sitting in the Borders and FLGS around where I work for a while.  You may be right though since I don't have any hard evidence to the contrary as well.  

I know the only one I'm picking up is the Greyhawk revisit, the rest just don't interest me.  The funny thing is when I first started playing 3.5 I would have been all over some good modules by WotC.  Now I've got Dungeon magazine, C&C and TLG's modules, and I have no real interest or need for the WotC modules anymore. I guess in my case they're coming out a little too late for me to feel any "need" for them.


----------



## Sir Elton (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Tome of Magic fits that bill pretty nicely.  Three completely original caster mechanics.




I'm talking setting, not sourcebooks!  I would like Wizards to get a He-Man license; and do a D&D setting based off of He-Man.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> The only modules I've heard real buzz about are the revisits of classics they are doing like Expedition to Ravenloft.




You must have missed the massive buzz over the Red Hand of Doom.

Cheers!


----------



## Agamon (Mar 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You must have missed the massive buzz over the Red Hand of Doom.
> 
> Cheers!




And Slaughtergarde, to a lesser extent.  I want this adventure, but can't find it around here at all.

There's buzz over the new FR AP adventures.

And the Expeditions are a big chunk of what Wizards is putting out, adventure-wise.

But, I agree, Dungeon is a DM's best friend.  All this means is that I'll be able to keep playing 3.5E without having to create completely original material long after 4E is introduced...


----------



## Pramas (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> SOrry for the threadomancy, but, I thought this was interesting.




Curse you for making me read all that again.  

I knew the thread sounded familiar and I wondered if I had said anything. Guess you could say that.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 22, 2007)

Krug said:
			
		

> Isn't there an overload of adventures already? I mean Dungeon puts out 3-4 adventures a magazine.




There are many things that can't be done in the limited amount of space _Dungeon_ allows.  In fact, Paizo recognizes this.  They are releasing adventures as part of their Gamemastery line.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Are the adventures really profitable for WotC or is it that they had to fill a particular vaccum in support for their own product and didn't really have any other options but to publish them?
> 
> And wasn't it WotC that originally claimed adventures weren't profitable?




I don't believe it was ever said they weren't profitable.  Just not profitable *enough*.  A large publisher has a bar that is higher than the smaller publishers for profit.  Why publish an adventure that might make you 1/10 of what you would make if you put that effort into another project.

The answer is clearly because adventures are needed in the market as a support product.  WotC expected that niche to largely be covered by d20 companies and _Dungeon_ magazine.  For the most part, d20 companies have stopped creating them.  The exceptions are a couple of companies who specialize in them.  However, WotC clearly feels it's not enough support.



> The same copies of Red Hand of Doom, Gates of Slaughtergarde, and the "Fantastic Locations" modules have been sitting in the Borders and FLGS around where I work for a while.



Are you certain they are the same copies and not reorders?  Even so, RPG products send to sell heavily within the first month or two and then die off quickly.

The "Fantastic Location" series is generally considered a failure by WotC (mentioned at the "D&D Xperience").  I'm sure a long discussion about why and how to fix it could be made.  I think a large part is the RPG customers saw it as a DDM product and often ignored it.  Even as a fan of the concept, I think the RPG section felt tacked on.  I think it could have been a success if they created it as an RPG product of some sort (a location based adventure, for example) and then added to maps to the product.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Are you certain they are the same copies and not reorders?  Even so, RPG products send to sell heavily within the first month or two and then die off quickly.
> 
> .




  Hey I just realized it's not The Red Hand of Doom, it's Scourge of the Howling Horde that's been sitting in Borders forever.  Now that think about it I don't think I've actually run across Red Hand of Doom, I think I've been mixing these two modules up for a while...DUH!


----------



## diaglo (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> SOrry for the threadomancy, but, I thought this was interesting.
> 
> We've known that the modules are coming for almost a year before they hit the shelves.  And they hit pretty well IMO.  Funnily enough, many of the predictions in the thread did not materialize.  WOTC made modules profitable, not by tying them to DDM, but by actually innovating the module and making them easier to run.
> 
> A little blast from the past.




well they didn't forget the DDM either. nor the Dungeon Tiles.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 22, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> And Slaughtergarde, to a lesser extent.  I want this adventure, but can't find it around here at all.




Just got this. Looks very cool. And deserves more buzz then it has gotten.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Are the adventures really profitable for WotC or is it that they had to fill a particular vaccum in support for their own product and didn't really have any other options but to publish them?
> 
> And wasn't it WotC that originally claimed adventures weren't profitable?




As mentioned, it's a matter of "not profitable enough" most likely. I mean, they were also getting rid of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, so it's not like WotC has the lock on whether something is a perfect idea for every company.

I think the adventures have been pretty good myself, and there's no way Dungeon could institute the Delve format.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Hey I just realized it's not The Red Hand of Doom, it's Scourge of the Howling Horde that's been sitting in Borders forever.  Now that think about it I don't think I've actually run across Red Hand of Doom, I think I've been mixing these two modules up for a while...DUH!




Yeah, _Scourge of the Howling Horde_ is probably the weakest of their recent adventures. It's not bad for newbies - which is who it is aimed at - but it has production problems, and a bad price point.

Cheers!


----------



## DaveyJones (Mar 23, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Yeah, _Scourge of the Howling Horde_ is probably the weakest of their recent adventures. It's not bad for newbies - which is who it is aimed at - but it has production problems, and a bad price point.
> 
> Cheers!



and the second in the series by Ed Stark hasn't faired much better in reviews.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 23, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> and the second in the series by Ed Stark hasn't faired much better in reviews.




There isn't actually a second in the series. They talked about Slaughtergarde as the sequel, but it isn't.

DD1: Barrow of the Forgotten King could work after Scourge, but it's not described as a sequel. It's a fair adventure, but you probably need DD2 and DD3 to judge it fairly. (If G1 had been the only Giants adventure to come out, it would have a horrible reputation).

Cheers!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 23, 2007)

Krug said:
			
		

> Isn't there an overload of adventures already? I mean Dungeon puts out 3-4 adventures a magazine.



Magazines have many advantages, but they don't hold up well, and they've got stuff in them other than the adventure one wants at any given moment. Plenty of people don't read Dungeon or Dragon, something that helps Joseph Goodman sleep well at night.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 23, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> There isn't actually a second in the series. They talked about Slaughtergarde as the sequel, but it isn't.
> 
> DD1: Barrow of the Forgotten King could work after Scourge, but it's not described as a sequel. It's a fair adventure, but you probably need DD2 and DD3 to judge it fairly. (If G1 had been the only Giants adventure to come out, it would have a horrible reputation).
> 
> Cheers!





I think Howling Horde failed, not just due to the unreadable stuff, but also because it didn't even help the (presumably) novice DM assemble the PC's and deal with assembling a group.

Slaughtergarde is a decent campaign I think, it's ToEE in "type" with a base and a lot of adventure. I liked the folder setup, a worthy successor to boxed sets. Layout was not that great though, putting one adventure in the campaign book... the adventures aren't anything grand, but it's still a solid adventure I think.

I mainly liked Forgotten King for the villain notes myself. Henchmen disobeying the boss, the boss taking his loyal followers and leaving camp while the others sleep, the hobgoblin deciding to rest before raising undead, it had a lot of fun elements. Most of which teh PC's won't see, sure, but still, another solid adventure.


----------



## Mokona (Mar 23, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> The "Fantastic Location" series is generally considered a failure by WotC (mentioned at the "D&D Xperience"). I think a large part is the RPG customers saw it as a DDM product and often ignored it.



It was a *D&D Miniatures* product that might have appealed to a few *Dungeon Masters*.    

Few sales of *D&D Miniatures* are for skirmish play.  As we know most games are homebrew where the predesigned maps don't often work (you can shoehorn them in, of course).  Thus the series failed.


----------



## DaveyJones (Mar 23, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> There isn't actually a second in the series. They talked about Slaughtergarde as the sequel, but it isn't.
> 
> DD1: Barrow of the Forgotten King could work after Scourge, but it's not described as a sequel. It's a fair adventure, but you probably need DD2 and DD3 to judge it fairly. (If G1 had been the only Giants adventure to come out, it would have a horrible reputation).
> 
> Cheers!




i guess i meant not a sequel directly with Hordes. but as a second in the series. Barrow is for 2nd lvl and Hordes for 1st. maybe it wasn't meant to be. just the timing of the release and the level give that impression.

both were meh.


----------

