# Necromancer Games-update by Orcus



## Sunderstone (Jun 18, 2009)

Not sure if this is ok to post here, we thought some would want to know (Hope Clark is ok with me linking/quoting this)...

Posted by Orcus 6/17/09  Necro Update -- 4E print not looking good, but still possible - General Discussion - General - Necromancer Games - Message Board - Yuku



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey everyone.
> 
> I know its been a long time between updates for a lot of reasons and that can be frustrating. Sorry for that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vascant (Jun 18, 2009)

I wonder if this is when we need to print T-Shirts stating "I survived the golden age of gaming and all I got was this".

Thanks for the honesty Clark and looking forward to what you guys come up with for Pathfinder.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 18, 2009)

Sounds like the distributors are playing it save, not the least because of the crisis (and the glut of 3e 3pp book problem we had at some time). Bugger that it´s so hard for good companies like Necromancer to get stuff accepted / into the chain.  

Yeah, verily: back then, we didn´t know how good it was, until it ended (somewhat). Not that i need 3pp, but i know many people are excited by them. Oh well.


----------



## Falstaff (Jun 18, 2009)

Necromancer: since you have worked with Kenzerco in the past, are there any chances that you would support the new HackMaster RPG with adventures and supplements?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2009)

I think the market is taking a two-sided assault; the economy in general is taking a hit (less money to spend on leisure item) and a general feeling 4e is not outselling 3e for the same time in the product line (aka same time in 2001). Add on the slow sales by 3pp (excluding a handful) and you get a recipie for stalling in the d20 market.

I foresee a lot more PDF/LuLu methods of distribution being the norm for 3PP D&D books, retro-clone to 4e.


----------



## Qualidar (Jun 18, 2009)

Ouch.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 18, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I think the market is taking a two-sided assault; the economy in general is taking a hit (less money to spend on leisure item) and a general feeling 4e is not outselling 3e for the same time in the product line (aka same time in 2001).




During the time period of 2000-2001, the economy was hit by the bursting of the dotcom bubble and subsequent collapse, along with 9-11.  Though one could argue that the dotcom collapse + 9-11 problems were not as widespread across the entire economy, compared to the real estate bubble collapse in recent times which does appear to be more far reaching and widespread.  This time around it does feel quite different than back in 2000-2001.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 18, 2009)

Sad news. Doesn't hugely effect me, I have no FLGS and only buy WotC products in paper form, mostly. Shipping here costs a bomb. But sad news for the 3PP industry, I hope this is not the end of some good companies.


----------



## mhensley (Jun 18, 2009)

totally expected this, I mean how many years has it been since they've released anything?

I wonder how Goodman is doing with their 4e stuff?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 18, 2009)

Well they paused everything once 4e was announced. Then announced a whole buch of 4e stuff only to not get the GSL. Then when it did come it was unusable to them.

They are not a full time company so they could wait. Unlike others, paizo, goodman and green ronin to name 3

But it seems as a downside no one will touch 4e stuff from them, sad for 4e necro fans


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 18, 2009)

mhensley said:


> I wonder how Goodman is doing with their 4e stuff?




They seem to have a bunch of 4e print products in the works. I was only on their website yesterday.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 18, 2009)

vagabundo said:


> They seem to have a bunch of 4e print products in the works. I was only on their website yesterday.





Not only "in the works" but already out! There are at least 8 4E compatible modules out, and a couple of other resource type books, not to mention Points of Light 1, and now 2.

So Goodman is definitely putting out the product, and presumably still selling strong.

Goodman did the smart thing, he realized the importance of "riding the wave", so he went with 4E compatibility via copyright, rather than wait on the GSL, so Goodman never missed a stride. Unfortunately Necro wasn't being nearly as business savy, and now we miss out on more of their good products.

I'll be happy with what we do get, but I know I would have been happier if Necro had jumped on the wave similar to Goodman.

Oh well, business is still largely a crap shoot, and Necro rolled badly.

Edit: Oops! My bag! Goodman has at least 12 modules out, plus an adventure in their 4E Level Up! magazine. Plus the other books, so going REAL strong by the looks of things.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2009)

Treebore said:


> not to mention Points of Light 1, and now 2.



That's right, because they are in fact not 4e products. Just in case anyone might make that (easy enough to make) mistake. I know I did until recently, when I happened to stumble upon a review.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> That's right, because they are in fact not 4e products. Just in case anyone might make that (easy enough to make) mistake. I know I did until recently, when I happened to stumble upon a review.




PoL2 does use some 4E terminology in its descriptions - unlike PoL1.

Hopefully they explain what those 4E terms mean beacuse I've ordered PoL2, but don't play 4E.   

If not, well, maybe one of you 4E fans will get a gift.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 18, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> That's right, because they are in fact not 4e products. Just in case anyone might make that (easy enough to make) mistake. I know I did until recently, when I happened to stumble upon a review.




They are 4E products, in that they are "edition neutral". Your certainly not going to find any new cool powerz in them, but if your looking for good setting material, they are worth checking out. They are done in the 4E "Points of light" theme that WOTC pushed for 4E FR, though. However, if your fan of how The Wilderlands, Greyhawk, or parts of Mystara felt, then you will likely be interested in Points of Light. Not to mention Goodmans own world setting in DCC 35.

These products are for those DM's who have blank spots on their maps, and looking for something with which to fill it, that is simple and leaves lots of room for customization.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 18, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> PoL2 does use some 4E terminology in its descriptions - unlike PoL1.
> 
> Hopefully they explain what those 4E terms mean beacuse I've ordered PoL2, but don't play 4E.
> 
> If not, well, maybe one of you 4E fans will get a gift.





If the terms are in the 4E PH I can tell you the definitions.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2009)

Treebore said:


> They are 4E products, in that they are "edition neutral".



Er. . .

I'm not quite sure how to process that one. If they're equally 3e products, AD&D products, etc., etc. . . . and they're _marketed by the creators_ as systemless, or edition neutral, or something like that. . . hm. No, I just don't get it.

But hey, it's all good. Whatever works, and stuff.

edit --- Hrm, didn't realise that about PoL II. OK, well maybe _that_ one *is* _slightly_ 4e-ish. The first one, not one bit.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 18, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Well they (Necromaner Games) paused everything once 4e was announced. Then announced a whole buch of 4e stuff only to not get the GSL. Then when it did come it was unusable to them.
> 
> They are not a full time company so they could wait. Unlike others, paizo, goodman and green ronin to name 3
> 
> But it seems as a downside no one will touch 4e stuff from them, sad for 4e necro fans






Treebore said:


> I'll be happy with what we do get, but I know I would have been happier if Necro had jumped on the wave similar to Goodman.
> 
> Oh well, business is still largely a crap shoot, and Necro rolled badly.




I don't think Necromancer made any bad business decisions, it's just that they are a very different company than Goodman Games.  I'm sure they both love what they do, but Goodman is in serious business to earn a profit, and Necromancer is more of a side project by some serious D&D fans.  

They simply got excited about the new D&D, came up with some cool projects, and then when the cold water of the original GSL was dumped on them, they put things on hold rather than spend effort getting crafty like Goodman.  And now the colder water of a down economy and a damaged brand (d20) is likely to kill off their enthusiam even moreso.

Could Necromancer have taken the route Goodman did and "ride the wave"?  Sure, but it's just not how they play the game.  It's unfortunate for them and for the fans who love their products, but not really a misstep on their part.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 18, 2009)

I have to admit, I'm chuckling to myself right now.

4E's BIGGEST cheerleader isnt/cant do proucts for it, because WOTC screwed around to much getting the GSL out and properly done?

The irony is astounding, especially in light of some of Orcus's words in the GSL forum, once the GSL was finally redone....what was his words again?



> That's all? 2 posts?
> 
> Come on, people!
> 
> ...


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 18, 2009)

I thought the same but was nice enough not to say it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 18, 2009)

I don't think it was just the GSL. I think Clark was assuming more of a continuation of the open gaming environment of the 3E era, as Necromancer games prided itself on the old school feel. 4E is a very specific sort of game, far more so than any previous edition of D&D. It doesn't really lend itself to alternate interpretations or the "old school" Necromancer feel, and the GSL basically disallows you to reinvent the wheel with 4E. So the combination of the GSL being restricting in a business/IP sense, 4E being contrary to the "flavor" of Necromancer, and the GSL restricting the ability to rewrite 4E failed to live up to Necromancer's expectations.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 18, 2009)

There's always the OGL games...  S&W, OSRIC, and Labyrinth Lord...

1st edition rules AND 1st edition feel.

WotC can't revoke the OGL.



Sorry, I just had to.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 18, 2009)

This is sad news. Expected (although not for the reasons stated), but sad.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 18, 2009)

carmachu said:


> I have to admit, I'm chuckling to myself right now.
> 
> 4E's BIGGEST cheerleader isnt/cant do proucts for it, because WOTC screwed around to much getting the GSL out and properly done?
> 
> The irony is astounding, especially in light of some of Orcus's words in the GSL forum, once the GSL was finally redone....what was his words again?




I don't think there is anybody, including anybody from WotC, who would try to argue that they didn't seriously drop the ball when it comes to the GSL.

But not everyone tends to be meanspirited about it.

Business mistakes happen.  Oh well.  I'm sure that there are WotC employees just as frustrated as Clark and a few more directly responsible for the mess that are kicking themselves now.  And I'm sure at the higher levels there are some who still don't get it.  It is the way of the modern corporation, and WotC is not immune.

The company still remains the top entertainment company in tabletop gaming, and deservedly so.  They still end up taking a huge percentage of my money, that's for sure.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 18, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I don't think there is anybody, including anybody from WotC, who would try to argue that they didn't seriously drop the ball when it comes to the GSL.
> 
> But not everyone tends to be meanspirited about it.




One could argue that might have been more than dropping the ball, considering how the first GSL looked, and more on how it was handled. 

But thats just speculation.



> Business mistakes happen. Oh well. I'm sure that there are WotC employees just as frustrated as Clark and a few more directly responsible for the mess that are kicking themselves now. And I'm sure at the higher levels there are some who still don't get it. It is the way of the modern corporation, and WotC is not immune.
> 
> The company still remains the top entertainment company in tabletop gaming, and deservedly so. They still end up taking a huge percentage of my money, that's for sure.





Wotc doesnt anymore from me, but  I hope you enjoy the edition your using.

But I can say I'm exactly sad. I'll miss some of the products Necro put out, but frankly everyone else had plans and contingencies...while he cheerlead and waited. And while the naysayers spoke, he poo pooed them down.

The irony here is pretty striking.


Hunter: yeah well, sometimes I'm not that nice.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu to be fair necro has a contingency plan as well. Support Pathfinder, which they will now do. How much is still left to be seen.

And I don't think his desire is any less than it was. I think it is more the market is very soft, so much so that a small company like Necro might struggle to even break even on 4e print products. Because distributors and such are not that interested because of the general slow down. 

I am not saying that is because of 4e, the economy and peoples bank accounts are taking a beating.  So when things get tight, hobbies are the first thing to go as far as spending for most people. I think it is more a combination of issues that has lead us to the point we are in, which has left Necro in the position they now find themselves.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 19, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> edit --- Hrm, didn't realise that about PoL II. OK, well maybe _that_ one *is* _slightly_ 4e-ish. The first one, not one bit.




Yeah, your right, "points of light" doesn't relate to 4E marketing at all.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

Dark Mistress said:


> carmachu to be fair necro has a contingency plan as well. Support Pathfinder, which they will now do. How much is still left to be seen.




While supporting pathfinder is great, hell its the path I choose, it doesnt really help the 4e fans that waited patiently for them. That doesnt help them.



> And I don't think his desire is any less than it was. I think it is more the market is very soft, so much so that a small company like Necro might struggle to even break even on 4e print products. Because distributors and such are not that interested because of the general slow down.
> 
> I am not saying that is because of 4e, the economy and peoples bank accounts are taking a beating. So when things get tight, hobbies are the first thing to go as far as spending for most people. I think it is more a combination of issues that has lead us to the point we are in, which has left Necro in the position they now find themselves.




Things were pretty tight back in 2001/2002 around. Hobbies tend to be inelastic(there's a discussion over in GW lands about that) as the hobby stretches your entertainnment budget- so long as you get off the constant buying wagon.


Someone pointed something out elsewhere-even before 4e announcement they were slowing down. Have you looked at their upcomiong product page? The first few entries have an assigned release date of Sep *2006* (Shades of Grey, Mother of All Treasure Tables, and Tower of Jhedovar). I thought the last was released already? The next set includes a bunch of "To be announced" and others from 2006-2007. Nothing with a release date from 2008 forward.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 19, 2009)

Wouldn't one of the sources for hesitation on the part of players and DMs on picking up 3pp be the fact that it isn't integrated into the char builder?

Looking at various online 4e games, one of the most common descriptions is "all char builder -legal/char builder -legal no forgotten realms/dragon etc"

I don't think the 4e char builder should be discounted in how players approach the game...


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 19, 2009)

I looked on Clark's announcement as hopeful news, because I think highly of some of the NG adventures, but have zero interest in 4e.  I'm one of those guys who would like to see "1e feel with 1e rules" (or any retro-clone rules, for that matter) from NG.  NG shifting away from 4e makes that more likely (even if it's still unlikely -- I'm not holding my breath).

The NG material that I liked the best was mostly stuff that originally came from Bill's (I think) 1e campaign, to begin with:  _Rappan Athuk_, _Demons & Devils_, _Tomb of Abysthor_.  That's the kind of stuff I'd like to see: site-based stuff that I can insert into my game, statted out with TSR-era D&D rules.  Doesn't even need to be big modules.  I'd be happy with smaller PDF and POD modules.  What were the page counts for classics like G1, D2, A4, B4, et cetera?


----------



## Coldwyn (Jun 19, 2009)

That´s sad news and in more than one way.
I always liked Necro Adventures and the later mini-campaigns. That was what I was missing from WotC and to which Necro catered - good adventures. And that´s still missing.

That aside, I never cared for their rule books (Tome of Horror series, etc.) and was never into the whole 1st edition feel thing.

In my opinion, two things threw Necro out of the field: The fact that Orcus is a lawyer and seemingly understood the GSL better than the competition (or gave it more thought) and the retro-focus, quite evident in their boards and projects like 4E classic. The GSL thing can´t be helped, but what about the latter?

AlleisterH mentioned the CB, but why would this be an issue when it comes down to adventures w/o any stuff for the players?


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> While supporting pathfinder is great, hell its the path I choose, it doesnt really help the 4e fans that waited patiently for them. That doesnt help them.




I was just pointing out as a company they had a backup plan from a business point of view.



> Things were pretty tight back in 2001/2002 around. Hobbies tend to be inelastic(there's a discussion over in GW lands about that) as the hobby stretches your entertainnment budget- so long as you get off the constant buying wagon.




Didn't say it was not tight then but the economy does have a impact on what people are buying and how much right now. Thats all i was saying is it was ONE of the factors involved.



> Someone pointed something out elsewhere-even before 4e announcement they were slowing down. Have you looked at their upcomiong product page? The first few entries have an assigned release date of Sep *2006* (Shades of Grey, Mother of All Treasure Tables, and Tower of Jhedovar). I thought the last was released already? The next set includes a bunch of "To be announced" and others from 2006-2007. Nothing with a release date from 2008 forward.




All three was released as was City of Brass the last product came out I believe summer of 07 from them(not sure the exact time). Which will mean they have not had a product in 2 years now.


----------



## JeffB (Jun 19, 2009)

After seeing the absolute mess that was the "4E classic" discussions and virtually no direction or input from the Necro crew themselves,  I gave up on that ever seeing the light of day, and mostly dropped off from posting there re: 4E- but I was still hopeful for some good 'ol Necro modules for 4E.

Although I'm not surprised by his post, I am disappointed with Clark's decision (or perhaps another "lack of decision").  All the back and forth back BS for months about the GSL,  and then the changes are made yay... all the cheerleading yayy and these are the products we are gonna do yayy, and now...pretty much nothing-just like before. While I understand he has to make the best decision business-wise for himself, a bunch of times I found myself thinking "OK Clark,  just , or get off the pot".

Goodman has been getting my 4E money,  will continue to do so, and I'm glad Joe took the ball and ran with it- GG is putting out some great stuff for ALL the editions.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> While supporting pathfinder is great, hell its the path I choose, it doesnt really help the 4e fans that waited patiently for them. That doesnt help them.




Poor 4e fans, no one to "help" them other than Mr. Goodman.

You make it sound like Necromancer failed in their responsibility to the fans, to provide us with product.  While I would love to see Necromancer do 4e stuff (and I would buy it), and I sympathize with Clark's position, I find it ridiculous to "blame" him for "failing" or for not "helping" me out.  Jeesh!

Fan entitlement and the disdain some fans seem to dredge up for creators who don't do things the "right" way (i.e. the complainer's way) never ceases to boggle me.  Clark has no responsibility to anyone but himself and his partners at Necromancer.  If he makes good stuff, awesome, I'll buy it.  If he doesn't, I'll be disappointed, but won't feel the need to "dance on his grave" and mock the "delicious irony".


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Poor 4e fans, no one to "help" them other than Mr. Goodman.
> 
> You make it sound like Necromancer failed in their responsibility to the fans, to provide us with product.  While I would love to see Necromancer do 4e stuff (and I would buy it), and I sympathize with Clark's position, I find it ridiculous to "blame" him for "failing" or for not "helping" me out.  Jeesh!
> 
> Fan entitlement and the disdain some fans seem to dredge up for creators who don't do things the "right" way (i.e. the complainer's way) never ceases to boggle me.  Clark has no responsibility to anyone but himself and his partners at Necromancer.  If he makes good stuff, awesome, I'll buy it.  If he doesn't, I'll be disappointed, but won't feel the need to "dance on his grave" and mock the "delicious irony".




So, 3E fans are more deserving of 3pp support than 4E fans?


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 19, 2009)

Coldwyn said:


> That aside, I never cared for their rule books (Tome of Horror series, etc.) and was never into the whole 1st edition feel thing.
> 
> In my opinion, two things threw Necro out of the field: The fact that Orcus is a lawyer and seemingly understood the GSL better than the competition (or gave it more thought) and the retro-focus, quite evident in their boards and projects like 4E classic. The GSL thing can´t be helped, but what about the latter?





See, the "retro" feel was a MAJOR appeal to me back in the early days of 3rd ed ("3rd ed rules, 1st ed feel!"). You can't target some groups without alientating some others. It's hardly fair to cite their direction in regards to the flavor of their products when A) that's what _they _like in their own games and B) that was the target niche to whom they were marketing.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jun 19, 2009)

Meh, I think Necro just wanted to jump out of the 4E gates with AAA titles (imho) like Eamonvale Incursion and Slumbering Tsar and hit the ground running. The GSL screwed that, and maybe thats what took the sails out of Necro.

Regardless, as people have stated NG hasnt put out anything in a long time and its run more as a side job than an actual 3PP like Goodman. 

On a tangent-Goodman is hopefully going to be re-releasing the older stuff on PDFs again soon. Makes me kind of curious about how well their 4E stuff is selling, im probably reading too much into that though.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 19, 2009)

Sunderstone said:


> On a tangent-Goodman is hopefully going to be re-releasing the older stuff on PDFs again soon. Makes me kind of curious about how well their 4E stuff is selling, im probably reading too much into that though.




I think you are. Since all they are doing is re-releasing their old DCCs (with corrections and necessary edits to make them OGL rather than d20) its pretty much a few weeks work for some easy money.

If they start making new 3.5/Pathfinder related material though, then I can officially believe their something to this "4e isn't selling" conspiracy...


----------



## rounser (Jun 19, 2009)

> I don't think there is anybody, including anybody from WotC, who would try to argue that they didn't seriously drop the ball when it comes to the GSL.



Why? Didn't 3rd party stuff glut the market and the lack of quality control from some 3PPs damage the brand?  Orcus even implies that there's not much appetite for it from distributors and retailers.  In light of that, maybe the GSL is working as intended i.e. WOTC not forfeiting control over the latest edition under the D&D brand.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 19, 2009)

Booooooooooooo. I was hoping to get my paws on a lot of good Necro stuff to shoehorn 4e into more of a game that I'm excited for (I play it and enjoy it well enough now, but it's kind of perfunctory). 

Ah, well. I'll keep up with what they're doing for Pathfinder.

It's very frustrating when the lawyers get in the way of a good product. 

Still, I'd take this as an opportunity to get a handle on the online market. The publishing industry is going through a shake-up, so now is the time to get wildly experimental, throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks. 

I'll take those 4e Necro PDF's, and I'll use the heck out of 'em. Use 'em, abuse 'em, etc.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 19, 2009)

rounser said:


> Why? Didn't 3rd party stuff glut the market and the lack of quality control from some 3PPs damage the brand?  Orcus even implies that there's not much appetite for it from distributors and retailers.  In light of that, maybe the GSL is working as intended i.e. WOTC not forfeiting control over the latest edition under the D&D brand.





I think I can explain this. You ever had a few shelves of product you paid for you can't sale?

Ya see it wans't the d20 glut that hurt. Back when Wotc pulled out 3.5  shelves  everywhere now had loads of stuff that where outdated and  pretty much unsellable. So they take the lose  and stop looking or carrying much 3pp as well to risky.

We go forward a few years some names are still pushing stuff out and have fainly started to make headway into stores again.

Then Wotc drops the 4e bombshell, something that they have told everyone was year and years away. And 3pp everywhere  have product no one will touch as its now  outdated and to a "dead" edition. stores take big loses on 3pp and so do many of the company.

Sales leading up to 4e where awful and well ya can't blame folks for buying something that is not the current edition. and you can't blame stores for not wanting to touch 3pp

So there ya have it, the risk of having unsellable stock is just to great much less for a 3pp that have not been pushing it out monthly


----------



## WereSteve (Jun 19, 2009)

> On a tangent-Goodman is hopefully going to be re-releasing the older stuff on PDFs again soon. Makes me kind of curious about how well their 4E stuff is selling, im probably reading too much into that though.




Goodman should be re-releasing the older DCC modules in PDFs ... especially since the Judges Guild modules released through Goodman Games have already been updated and re-released.


----------



## Henry (Jun 19, 2009)

Assuming he gets to read this, I'll say: Clark, thanks for trying to do things the right way, even if the end result didn't work out as planned. I don't think WotC corporate wanted a "Golden Age", they wanted a "Profitable Age" -- even if the enthusiasm is not as it once was.

I've even turned off a little to 4E myself, lately -- after the good basic tools I saw in the first three core books and the PHB2, I really haven't seen seen much I've wanted, myself. The rest, I've been able to create myself, and the "new" innovations from Wardens, to the stuff in Arcane power, to Adventurer's Vault, most of it has left me a bit blank. 

I've even given up my DDI subscription because not only have I not had much use for it this year, but I got too much hassle when I had to change my subscription. I just said "screw it" and didn't re-subscribe.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> I think I can explain this. You ever had a few shelves of product you paid for you can't sale?
> 
> Ya see it wans't the d20 glut that hurt. Back when Wotc pulled out 3.5  shelves  everywhere now had loads of stuff that where outdated and  pretty much unsellable. So they take the lose  and stop looking or carrying much 3pp as well to risky.
> 
> ...




You are missing a few steps here. 3.5E's hostility towards 3pp goes beyond simply changing the game and making older books incompatible. Before 3.5, D&D wasn't as focused on selling splatbooks of player options. In base 3E, we had the Sword and Fist et cetera line of books which paled in comparison to what 3pp were publishing. These books were popular, and when 3E was revised and relaunched WotC dove into the splatbook business, not only creating compatibility issues but creating their own books in competition with 3pps. You also discount the damage that the 3pp community did to itself.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 19, 2009)

I'm sad that Clark isn't going to do what he wants, especially considering how much enthusiasm he had.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 19, 2009)

You're also forgetting the early 3e days. There _was_ a glut. A huge splashing wave. And quite simply, there was a _lot_ of schlock.


----------



## Badwe (Jun 19, 2009)

The issues we describe in this thread are not unique to RPGs.  I work for a distribution company that is desperate to shrink inventory during these recession times.  Look at GM/Chrysler dealers left holding the bag with all the cars nobody wants.  As discretionary (really, any spending) shrinks, it becomes almost toxic to have inventory because you're paying to hold something that might not sell quickly enough.

Someone mentioned 3e being more deserving of 3pp, despite being an avid fan of 4e I would be inclined to agree.  To be blunt, when I played 3e I was always underwhelmed by the quality of the splatbooks and supplements being released by WotC.  Aside from learning to hone the ruleset over the course of 4e, they learned some valuable business model lessons as well.  The success of the 3.5 PHB2 obviously did not go unnoticed.  WotC simply has a very shrewdly concocted 4e release schedule and system of modules/supplements/sourcebooks that really comes off as high-value compared to what was usually coming out in the 3e era. 

 In turn, that sets the bar of quality higher for potential 3pp. It probably also means their potential customers are spending more of their budget on the 1pp first. Now, the onus falls on the 3pp to convince the customer they should grow their entertainment budget.  GSL aside I would say the business model of 4e is less friendly to 3pp, there are fewer cracks waiting to be filled in, almost no "low hanging fruit" missed opportunities.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

And the fact that no Character Builder support would be a deal breaker from a surprising number of people. I know people who won't use WotC stuff until the builder has it.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 19, 2009)

Oh yes I recall the..humm lets just say I recall the glut.  Still  glut didnt not have as much to do with it as the edition switch.

The stores do not read the book, how are they to know it's junk. What they saw was good sales..ok sales then ed change and  all this stuff I can't sale

But hey look the Wotc stuff is saleing but I can't sale the 3pp stuff. So a few years later re do it again without the glut so who do they stop carrying? 

Not blaming Wotc for the issue but there it is. All the store knows it If I stock all this and they change it who is going to buy my stock?


----------



## Draksila (Jun 19, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Oh yes I recall the..humm lets just say I recall the glut. Still glut didnt not have as much to do with it as the edition switch.
> 
> The stores do not read the book, how are they to know it's junk. What they saw was good sales..ok sales then ed change and all this stuff I can't sale
> 
> ...




Not saying that you don't have a valid point, Hunter, but I know that locally the reason the stores had leftover 3pp product in the first place was because it was crap. A couple of books sold to very specific parties, but for the most part the local store owners were stuck with product from 2000 that just wouldn't go anywhere. You picked up one of these 3pp books, flipped through it, and immediately got the impression that a 14-year-old with more money and enthusiasm than imagination had thrown these things out on the shelf. Being that our local game shops were run by tabletop gamers, they were well aware of the fact that what they'd ordered had been overhyped and now they were stuck with poorly-written schlock.  When our local gaming shops went under (due mostly to being unable to compete with Amazon's prices and shipping), the vast majority of their third party stock was the same stuff they'd had for five years... and wouldn't even sell at fire sale prices.

The initial 3pp glut, the craptastic quality it flooded the market with, and the brand degradation that it caused were a real concern... at least in this market. I'd be very surprised if WotC's caution with the current license didn't come from at least a bit of an attempt at reclaiming their brand name's geek cred.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

It's a tough economy, and the competition is tough.  I thought Necro was up to the challenge like Goodman, but I guess they are not. It sounds to me like they are blaming others and making excuses instead of rising to the challenge.  Ah well, too bad.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 19, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> It's a tough economy, and the competition is tough.  I thought Necro was up to the challenge like Goodman, but I guess they are not. It sounds to me like they are blaming others and making excuses instead of rising to the challenge.  Ah well, too bad.



Not to me.  It seems to me that they are looking at reality and realizing that the bar is high.  Clark commented that a couple of products might see print (I still am _expecting_ a Tome of Horrors 4E) and he might go to a PDF market.

The basic fact is that whatever internal struggles there were with the GSL, the entire circumstances put a big dent in 3rd party plans.  Combine it with the other challenges that everyone is facing, and "rising to the challenge" moves from a tough fight to tilting at windmills.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 19, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> It's a tough economy, and the competition is tough.  I thought Necro was up to the challenge like Goodman, but I guess they are not. It sounds to me like they are blaming others and making excuses instead of rising to the challenge.  Ah well, too bad.





What competition? The whole point is there is almost no 3pp anymore. Other than Goodman Games, how many 4th ed specific 3rd party PRINT material is out there?

The Necro guys were some of the biggest cheerleaders for the new edition, until the GSL fiasco. Even now, they want to put out some product, but the stiffling GSL (and lack of Character Builder support, I'm guessing) pretty much nixes any printed books. Since their whole gaming company is a hobby and not a primary source of income, why should they bother? Instead of "excuses", I see how WotC slammed the door in the face of a company that made quality products promoting their core line, and even up until recently was a staunch supporter of the new edition. They WANTED to help, and was pretty much handed a license that they knew, as practicing lawyers in their day jobs, was potentially a poison pill. 

Of course, as a Pathfinder fan, this is potentially good news for me.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> Not to me.  It seems to me that they are looking at reality and realizing that the bar is high.  Clark commented that a couple of products might see print (I still am _expecting_ a Tome of Horrors 4E) and he might go to a PDF market.
> 
> The basic fact is that whatever internal struggles there were with the GSL, the entire circumstances put a big dent in 3rd party plans.  Combine it with the other challenges that everyone is facing, and "rising to the challenge" moves from a tough fight to tilting at windmills.




I don't know of any businesses right now that are not facing similar, or even worse, challenges.  Hard time getting retailers to carry your product? Hard time finding distributors to distribute your product? Hard time getting financing to produce your product? These are not unique problems.  They are the same problems just about every business is facing right now. 

Those who are up to it find ways to overcome the difficulties. Those not, complain that something other than themselves is to blame for their inability to succeed.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 19, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> What competition? The whole point is there is almost no 3pp anymore. Other than Goodman Games, how many 4th ed specific 3rd party PRINT material is out there?.



I've seen Expeditious Retreat Press and Mongoose out there.  I am surprised I haven't seen the Creature Collection from Fiery Dragon out there.  I also have seen one or two products from small publishers as well.

Still, not too much and it really doesn't seem to be displayed prominently.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 19, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I don't know of any businesses right now that are not facing similar, or even worse, challenges.  Hard time getting retailers to carry your product? Hard time finding distributors to distributor your product? Hard time getting financing to produce your product? These are not unique problems.  They are the same problems just about every business is facing right now.
> 
> Those who are up to it find ways to overcome the difficulties. Those not, complain that something other than themselves is to blame for their inability to succeed.




Or C) those that don't *HAVE *to in order to feed their families drop sideline hobby projects and focus on their money-making careers.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 19, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> I've seen Expeditious Retreat Press and Mongoose out there.  I am surprised I haven't seen the Creature Collection from Fiery Dragon out there.  I also have seen one or two products from small publishers as well.
> 
> Still, not too much and it really doesn't seem to be displayed prominently.




Exactly. Almost none, and the top 4 or 5 from 3rd ed aren't on that list (Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, Paizo, Sword & Sorcery/WW). 

The pendulum swung a bit too far in the other direction, if you are anyone but the WotC authors of the GSL, IMHO.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 19, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Exactly. Almost none, and the top 4 or 5 from 3rd ed aren't on that list (Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, Paizo, Sword & Sorcery/WW).
> 
> The pendulum swung a bit too far in the other direction, if you are anyone but the WotC authors of the GSL, IMHO.





Which was the whole goal of the restrictive GSL in the first place, in my cynical opinion.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 19, 2009)

Going back further into rpg history, one can see what happened to Judges Guild.  Even with few 3pp companies for AD&D, one can go belly up very easily.


----------



## Melan (Jun 19, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I don't think it was just the GSL. I think Clark was assuming more of a continuation of the open gaming environment of the 3E era, as Necromancer games prided itself on the old school feel. 4E is a very specific sort of game, far more so than any previous edition of D&D. It doesn't really lend itself to alternate interpretations or the "old school" Necromancer feel, and the GSL basically disallows you to reinvent the wheel with 4E. So the combination of the GSL being restricting in a business/IP sense, 4E being contrary to the "flavor" of Necromancer, and the GSL restricting the ability to rewrite 4E failed to live up to Necromancer's expectations.



This is my position as well. The mismanaged introduction of the GSL is worthy of a lot of blame, but there also seems to be an underlying cultural shift towards more official, more codified, more fine-tuned gaming instead of the fairly free market of ideas that characterised 3.0. Looking at ENWorld or RPGNet's D&D subforum, I am not seeing a _buzz_ for 3rd party products that promise a different play experience, while people are still passionately debating the merits of various 4e rulebooks. Around 2001, ENWorld was awash with discussions over Sword&Sorcery's product, the pentagram on Relics&Rituals, first edition feel, Green Ronin and all that; today, this doesn't seem to be the case.

The second point is that with 4e, Wizards pretty much _*massacred*_ Necromancer's niche and split its market. If you like "1st edition feel" or "old school", it is often very hard to like 4e's supposed innovations, or even recognise the game as a legitimate D&D edition. Sure, there are lots of people who fall into this category, but I'd estimate there were at least as many who jumped ship or just quietly walked away. It is a hard game to write old school support for.

Third, what remained of Necro's niche is now efficiently served by Goodman Games (although I consider their products to be more hit and miss) and Expeditious Retreat Press. It is not easy to return to the field, especially as a hobby company that effectively hasn't published new books for years now.

All in all, I have a lot of symapthy for Clark, but they are in a bit of a predicament. I would love to see some long-promised classics (e.g. *The Sword of Air* or *Treasure Maps and Lairs*), and generally more low-maintenance, low-pagecount products, but I am skeptical about their viability in today's environment.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 19, 2009)

Though this is somewhat good to me as a budding Pathfinder fan, I can't help to find it tragic.  Not deliciously tragic or humerously tragic, but just all and all sad.  Necromancer Games was, bar none, the one 3rd party I saw most excited about 4e, and I'd wager they helped sell a few of those 4e books as well, and for them to be unable to *support the edition they want to support*, it's...well, it's a bit depressing.  They're major fans who have been told to go away - that they aren't wanted.

Sorry, but I don't really find any humor in this.  What I do find is a lack of surprise.  I'm not surprised that WotC effectively shot themselves in the foot regarding this, and I'm not *at all* surprised that a 3rd party developer is finding themselves unable to support 4e.  I'm going to go with Joe on this - I can't help but feel that this is exactly what the GSL was intended to do; kill off independant third party developers, while giving an air that they really wanted to get them on board, but gosh darn it, just could quite seem to, and of course through no fault of their _own_, it was just _unhappy circumstance_.

Well, way to go Wizards.  You got what you wanted.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 19, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I can't help but feel that this is exactly what the GSL was intended to do; kill off independant third party developers, while giving an air that they really wanted to get them on board, but gosh darn it, just could quite seem to, and of course through no fault of their _own_, it was just _unhappy circumstance_.
> 
> Well, way to go Wizards.  You got what you wanted.



This.

Ugh, did I just respond with a 'this'. . .? Oh well, that too seems fitting, somehow.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 19, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Though this is somewhat good to me as a budding Pathfinder fan, I can't help to find it tragic.  Not deliciously tragic or humerously tragic, but just all and all sad.  Necromancer Games was, bar none, the one 3rd party I saw most excited about 4e, and I'd wager they helped sell a few of those 4e books as well, and for them to be unable to *support the edition they want to support*, it's...well, it's a bit depressing.  They're major fans who have been told to go away - that they aren't wanted.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't really find any humor in this.  What I do find is a lack of surprise.  I'm not surprised that WotC effectively shot themselves in the foot regarding this, and I'm not *at all* surprised that a 3rd party developer is finding themselves unable to support 4e.  I'm going to go with Joe on this - I can't help but feel that this is exactly what the GSL was intended to do; kill off independant third party developers, while giving an air that they really wanted to get them on board, but gosh darn it, just could quite seem to, and of course through no fault of their _own_, it was just _unhappy circumstance_.
> 
> Well, way to go Wizards.  You got what you wanted.




Look, if you want to support the "Wotc wants to kill 3pp" conspiracy theory, you cannot say that 
a) Wotc shot themselves into the foot AND
b) Wotc got what they wanted by driving away competition. Try to be a little more consistant.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Look, if you want to support the "Wotc wants to kill 3pp" conspiracy theory, you cannot say that
> a) Wotc shot themselves into the foot AND
> b) Wotc got what they wanted by driving away competition. Try to be a little more consistant.




Actually you can say both.  I reverse your choices so that it makes sense.  b) If it was their intention to drive away 3PPs then they succeeded in doing that by delaying and then bumbling the GSL by putting constraints in the agreement to the point it was not feasible to sign on.

a) If that's the case then WotC shot themselves in the foot by thinking that they could survive on their own without further 3PP support in a market that has become dependant upon mixing and matching what fits into each individual's tastes.  4e has not gone over as WotC expected.  I believe they expected to lose a few people with the change but not as many as they have.  Nor do I think WotC expected the outcry to continue on for as long as it has. Though this is more a result of the internet providing a vocal forum for objection where as in the past they could ignore a few letters from fans willing to pay postage to voice complaints.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

Thanks for the kind words everyone. 

And for those laughing at the irony, I'm right there with you. I agree. It is ironic. Of course, it just so happens that I also wish it wasnt me that happened to be the brunt of that irony  but it sure is. Dont fret about the hard words, though. I'm a big boy. I can take it.  If I was worried about people pointing out the irony I wouldnt have posted. I could have just kept quiet. But I thought people have been waiting and deserved to know. 

I had a nice long chat with Scott Rouse today. He is the man. I really wish the vision he and Linae had for the GSL had been allowed to proceed out of the chute. I understand why it didnt work out that way, I think. What a different place D&D would be in if the GSL was as it is now at launch. Or, better yet, had the suggestion to PI 4E and release it under the OGL been adopted. Makes you wonder if there would even have been a Pathfinder and a splintered marketplace. I have this image in my mind of Paizo supporting 4E and Necro doing the products we envisioned at launch and other print publishers all being on board--like we all were on that big conference call before WotC changed course. Seriously, when I got off the phone from that conference call of the publishers with Linae and Scott, I dont think I'm exaggerating to say people were pumped. We were suprised. Many of us emailed each other and said "wow, its really happening, we're gonna get to support 4E, they are listeniing to us, they understand the value of 3Ps to the launch of the new system and to supporitng the game on store shelves, the way stuff happened for 3E." Then it all went wrong. 

The problem, I think, was the distributors. As 4E got near, they said "we hope there wont be a glut again like with 3E" and I think that really threw Wizards and I think that got the GSL off track. Then, when 4E launched without 3Ps, those same distributors said "hey, there arent any products to support this new line." And now when you talk to them about doing products they say "there's no established track record and sales suck." Its like a self-fulfilling prophesy. 

Its crazy. Its been crazy. Luckily we have good people with vision who want to make it right. I still believe in Scott and I believe Wizards can pull itself out of this dangerous track they are in of dividing the customer base. 

I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players. How much would it rule to see some of the old handbooks revised and reprinted (for those who want them)? How about not tell us waht to play and demean those who dont adopt the new hotness? How about finding a unifying thread of that game? How about a system-neutral world that has run through every edition of D&D prior to now (nudge nudge, a Greyhawk revival that is a setting only, not system specific; how rad would that be, nudge nudge)? Sometimes I wonder if Wizards has learned the lessons of the history of this hobby.

I hope they find their way to say, "hey, come over here. sit down with me. lets play D&D. however you want. we are the company of D&D and we want to help all of you play it." I think that can be done. Here's hoping. But you guys would be right to take my optimism with a grain of salt. I cant deny that 

Anyway, I got off track. I'm still a cheerleader. I'm still an optimist. I still have immense respect for Scott (and Linae) and the people there who get it. I have come to the conclusion that the momentum behind the GSL was not capitalized on. That ship has sailed and we cant get that chance back. And the inertia of getting it back running again is working against us. That bums me out that we missed that chance (and by "we" I mean wizards working in partnership with the 3Ps; and you guys need to know that as of the time of the inisider conference call, that was really really close to happening). 

So I came to those conclusions and evaluated the current situation, I made the post I made. 

Thanks again for the comments--the good and the bad. All are warranted. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> I have to admit, I'm chuckling to myself right now.
> 
> 4E's BIGGEST cheerleader isnt/cant do proucts for it, because WOTC screwed around to much getting the GSL out and properly done?
> 
> The irony is astounding, especially in light of some of Orcus's words in the GSL forum, once the GSL was finally redone....what was his words again?





You and me both. 

My quote about eating crow, though (as I recall) had to do with those who said there would never be a revised GSL. I got that part right  Unfortunately, it was too late.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> I thought the same but was nice enough not to say it.




Also appreciated.  And you're both right.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I don't think Necromancer made any bad business decisions, it's just that they are a very different company than Goodman Games.  I'm sure they both love what they do, but Goodman is in serious business to earn a profit, and Necromancer is more of a side project by some serious D&D fans.
> 
> They simply got excited about the new D&D, came up with some cool projects, and then when the cold water of the original GSL was dumped on them, they put things on hold rather than spend effort getting crafty like Goodman.  And now the colder water of a down economy and a damaged brand (d20) is likely to kill off their enthusiam even moreso.
> 
> Could Necromancer have taken the route Goodman did and "ride the wave"?  Sure, but it's just not how they play the game.  It's unfortunate for them and for the fans who love their products, but not really a misstep on their part.




I'd say that I agree with most of that. 

I'm happy for Joe that he's doing good with his DCCs. I think they are cool. That just wasnt what I was interested in doing. I'm glad the OGL system neutral move helped him transition. But as you say, the need for me to do Necro is much different. It isnt my "job." It doesnt feed my family. So my approach is different. And by waiting I missed some "opportunities," but ones I wasnt that interested in. I want to make the books I want to make. I dont need to make books. 

But I'm not gonna sugar coat it. I think your analogy of the "cold water of the original GSL" is a good one.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

Thanks for responding Clark.



Orcus said:


> I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players. How much would it rule to see some of the old handbooks revised and reprinted (for those who want them)? How about not tell us waht to play and demean those who dont adopt the new hotness? How about finding a unifying thread of that game? How about a system-neutral world that has run through every edition of D&D prior to now (nudge nudge, a Greyhawk revival that is a setting only, not system specific; how rad would that be, nudge nudge)? Sometimes I wonder if Wizards has learned the lessons of the history of this hobby.




I have to agree with that.  Something I failed to mention in my previous post.  WotC's current stance definitely isn't helping sale to previous customers who are turned off by 4e.  I know a lot of players who aren't buying 4e period, not even to at least get source material.

I think you're right with the idea of a neutral campaign.  It's a great concept and Green Ronin's Freeport is a fine working model for how it could work.  I'm surprised a lot of companies haven't jumped on to that idea.  There is such a wide marketing and licensing opportunity that is going to waste by not doing it.  The potential for cross marketing is also huge.  Greyhawk for D&D all editions, Pathfinder, True20, WHFRP, Gurps, and so on, all of which would open paths into D&D of some form.

I also like the idea of revised older editions being made if only through print on demand.  POD has such potential that could be capitalized by WotC.  Oh well, we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I have this image in my mind of Paizo supporting 4E



 Despite, on numerous occassions, Paizo saying they have no interest in 4e because the system doesn't support the type of stories they want to tell? They're more or less mentioned on several occassions that it's not necessarily the GLS but the system and that they have no people currently working for them that know the 4e system (strange since Wolfgang has published 4e material under his own banner but whatever.) 



Orcus said:


> The problem, I think, was the distributors. As 4E got near, they said "we hope there wont be a glut again like with 3E" ...I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players.





So distributors fear a glut, but WoTC could start reprinting all editions? Uh... yeah, not seeing that happening. Now WoTC doing something more awesome like making an OGL for previous editions of the game and letting other people support it? That's more likely but still pie in the sky I believe. 



Orcus said:


> How much would it rule to see some of the old handbooks revised and reprinted (for those who want them)?



 Now we're getting back to glut and printing costs among other things. If Dragon and Dungeon go digital because WoTC wants to make them part of the DDI, I can't see how pushing people towards print products of niche products would be the way to go. And my god! The bitching! Imagine how much a AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook would cost off the line newly printed. People would be weeping in the streets that WoTC is doing things to their backside because that's not what it cost in 1984.



Orcus said:


> Sometimes I wonder if Wizards has learned the lessons of the history of this hobby.



 That new editions come along for virtually all game systems and that most companies don't support the previous editions? Yeah, I think they got that one. (Notable exception is the guys doing Rolemaster with their Rolemaster Classic line. Thumbs up!)



Orcus said:


> I hope they find their way to say, "hey, come over here. sit down with me. lets play D&D. however you want. we are the company of D&D and we want to help all of you play it." I think that can be done. Here's hoping. But you guys would be right to take my optimism with a grain of salt. I cant deny that



 Huge grain amigo. I love Necromancer products. Still convert some ToH beasties now and again for my 4e game. BUT, as you were so gun ho on supporting the latest edition, this whole post seems like it came from Bizzaro Clark. If from the get go you had been on this multiple edition frame, then it would make sense but unless I'm missing something, Necromancer Games isn't doing a Tome of Horrors OSRIC, not Swords and Wizardry, nor Castles and Crusades, etc... If YOU, Clark, feel that there is value in supporting all editions of D&D, step up to the plate man. Let's see those various systems for Tome of Horrors. Let's see you beat wizards at their own game.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 19, 2009)

That's a shame.  Oh well, as it happens I'm soon to start running 4e, using a Necromancer product - _The Vault of Larin Karr_.  Conversion looks pretty easy.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 19, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> So, 3E fans are more deserving of 3pp support than 4E fans?




Deserves got nothin to do with it.

3e fans _*will *_get more 3pp support than 4e fans, because the OGL is better than the GSL.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 19, 2009)

Again, wouldn't the biggest obstacle for 3PP be the total lack of support on the char builder?

Seriously, look at the online 4e games and they seem to ALWAYS say "char builder-legal". Moreso than the GSL, this is what kills off 3PP support IMO.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

never mind.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

Dark Mistress said:


> Didn't say it was not tight then but the economy does have a impact on what people are buying and how much right now. Thats all i was saying is it was ONE of the factors involved.




Maybe, but there are more things likely to get cut back then the book, which gives you the most bang for your buck instead of say....a movie or eating out.




> All three was released as was City of Brass the last product came out I believe summer of 07 from them(not sure the exact time). Which will mean they have not had a product in 2 years now.




Which means, ultimately, Necro was irrelevant to the general market for what, a year before 4e?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Now we're getting back to glut and printing costs among other things. If Dragon and Dungeon go digital because WoTC wants to make them part of the DDI, I can't see how pushing people towards print products of niche products would be the way to go. And my god! The bitching! Imagine how much a AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook would cost off the line newly printed. People would be weeping in the streets that WoTC is doing things to their backside because that's not what it cost in 1984.




Hmm. I wonder if they could add earlier edition material to the DDI package. Maybe make the (existing but taken from market) PDFs available via DDI. Maybe with a special format and a special viewer? But that's probably just too much development effort...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 19, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> It's a tough economy, and the competition is tough.  I thought Necro was up to the challenge like Goodman, but I guess they are not. It sounds to me like they are blaming others and making excuses instead of rising to the challenge.  Ah well, too bad.




Way off the mark, in my opinion. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but 4e doesn't allow Clark to "tell the kinds of stories he wants to tell."

He's not publishing to make a living, he's doing it because he enjoys the game. 4e just doesn't "do it" for Clark, so it's easy for him to give it a pass.

There's not a lack of business acumen, there's a lack of enthusiasm.

(Blithely putting words in Clark's mouth despite the fact I know he's right here...)


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 19, 2009)

To be honest, Clark has a good idea regarding at least WoTC considering the adoption of either (a) "classic support" for other D&D games, or (b) making settings rules-neutral.  

With each new edition of D&D, there is a fracturing of the consumer base.  I don't believe this is necessary, as you can revise a game without having to make fundamental revisions.  Why not at least send out test balloons, or consider making a third party company the exclusive producer of those games and get royalty payments.  If it turns out demand for 1e or 3e is better than 4e, then maybe they need to adjust their plan.  

Settings that are rule-neutral or rule-agnostic might also be a good idea.  Instead of forcing massive reboots, keep the campaign settings to their core and publish lore.  Since it turns out in many cases the novel lines are more successful, this would please those people as well.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I had a nice long chat with Scott Rouse today. He is the man. I really wish the vision he and Linae had for the GSL had been allowed to proceed out of the chute. I understand why it didnt work out that way, I think. What a different place D&D would be in if the GSL was as it is now at launch. Or, better yet, had the suggestion to PI 4E and release it under the OGL been adopted. Makes you wonder if there would even have been a Pathfinder and a splintered marketplace. I have this image in my mind of Paizo supporting 4E and Necro doing the products we envisioned at launch and other print publishers all being on board--like we all were on that big conference call before WotC changed course. Seriously, when I got off the phone from that conference call of the publishers with Linae and Scott, I dont think I'm exaggerating to say people were pumped. We were suprised. Many of us emailed each other and said "wow, its really happening, we're gonna get to support 4E, they are listeniing to us, they understand the value of 3Ps to the launch of the new system and to supporitng the game on store shelves, the way stuff happened for 3E." Then it all went wrong.




Looking at the game itself, not to mention WotCs action, I can't really believe there was ever any plan to release 4E under the OGL. The entire 4E model seems to have "disengage D&D from the OGL" built into it, right down to the game mechanics. I think Scott and Linae wanted Goodman style support in a lot more quanitity than has been the case, and that got derailed, but I really believe the 4E and the OGL was a dead duck no matter what happened.



Orcus said:


> The problem, I think, was the distributors. As 4E got near, they said "we hope there wont be a glut again like with 3E" and I think that really threw Wizards and I think that got the GSL off track. Then, when 4E launched without 3Ps, those same distributors said "hey, there arent any products to support this new line." And now when you talk to them about doing products they say "there's no established track record and sales suck." Its like a self-fulfilling prophesy.




This could be true, where WotC tried to use the language of the GSL to control what could be produced to avoid another d20 glut. Maybe this caused the delay which derailed the support WotC was hoping for. Still, I think disengaging D&D from the OGL was always the plan. 



Orcus said:


> Its crazy. Its been crazy. Luckily we have good people with vision who want to make it right. I still believe in Scott and I believe Wizards can pull itself out of this dangerous track they are in of dividing the customer base.
> 
> I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players. How much would it rule to see some of the old handbooks revised and reprinted (for those who want them)? How about not tell us waht to play and demean those who dont adopt the new hotness? How about finding a unifying thread of that game? How about a system-neutral world that has run through every edition of D&D prior to now (nudge nudge, a Greyhawk revival that is a setting only, not system specific; how rad would that be, nudge nudge)? Sometimes I wonder if Wizards has learned the lessons of the history of this hobby.




From my bystander's perspective, I don't think the 3E era was a complete success. It started off with a bang and went out with a "meh". Looking at 4E's very focused business plan, its hard to come up with any conclusion other than dividing the customer base by focusing on core D&D only and not supporting alternate interpretations was the plan. If anything about 4E can be said, it is that the game is focused like a laser on what it wants to do. I don't think WotC means to demean those who don't adopt the new hotness, but they are making it clear that they aren't part of the business plan anymore.



Orcus said:


> I hope they find their way to say, "hey, come over here. sit down with me. lets play D&D. however you want. we are the company of D&D and we want to help all of you play it." I think that can be done. Here's hoping. But you guys would be right to take my optimism with a grain of salt. I cant deny that




As someone who wasn't convinced by 3E's inclusive philosophy or the OGL movement, I think this attitude hurt as much as it helped. It opened new doors and blazed new horizons, but it weakened what D&D was at the core. As somebody who has been a player of "Core D&D" since the middle of 2E's run, adapting with the changing game as it progressed, watering down "Core D&D" was something that I both noticed and disliked. 



Orcus said:


> Anyway, I got off track. I'm still a cheerleader. I'm still an optimist. I still have immense respect for Scott (and Linae) and the people there who get it. I have come to the conclusion that the momentum behind the GSL was not capitalized on. That ship has sailed and we cant get that chance back. And the inertia of getting it back running again is working against us. That bums me out that we missed that chance (and by "we" I mean wizards working in partnership with the 3Ps; and you guys need to know that as of the time of the inisider conference call, that was really really close to happening).
> 
> So I came to those conclusions and evaluated the current situation, I made the post I made.
> 
> ...




The delay killed things, but I think people would have been similiarly disappointed no matter what, because the GSL wasn't the OGL and never was going to be so.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Jun 19, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Looking at the game itself, not to mention WotCs action, I can't really believe there was ever any plan to release 4E under the OGL. The entire 4E model seems to have "disengage D&D from the OGL" built into it, right down to the game mechanics. I think Scott and Linae wanted Goodman style support in a lot more quanitity than has been the case, and that got derailed, but I really believe the 4E and the OGL was a dead duck no matter what happened.




See, I don't think you can ascribe one motivation to WotC in regards to the GSL. The whole thing smacks of something that was a great idea until someone on the business end got involved. If WotC wanted to cut 3rd party support, they could have just not had a system license at all. If they wanted to have Goodman Games or whoever support them, they could have given Goodman a license but not had an open license for anyone else.

WotC is a corporation made up of a lot of different people. I think certain folks probably genuinely wanted an OGL or d20 logo, but that other people in the company wanted something much more restrictive or maybe even no license at all. The end result turned out to be a compromise between the two, but not really a very good one.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> You and me both.
> 
> My quote about eating crow, though (as I recall) had to do with those who said there would never be a revised GSL. I got that part right  Unfortunately, it was too late.





You did. But unfortunately, it WAS too late, and a few people were thinking so.

But I want to address one point in your last post:



> Its crazy. Its been crazy. Luckily we have good people with vision who want to make it right. I still believe in Scott and I believe Wizards can pull itself out of this dangerous track they are in of dividing the customer base.
> 
> I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players. How much would it rule to see some of the old handbooks revised and reprinted (for those who want them)? How about not tell us waht to play and demean those who dont adopt the new hotness? How about finding a unifying thread of that game? How about a system-neutral world that has run through every edition of D&D prior to now (nudge nudge, a Greyhawk revival that is a setting only, not system specific; how rad would that be, nudge nudge)? Sometimes I wonder if Wizards has learned the lessons of the history of this hobby.




To be honest? Its too late. WAY too late. No one is goingto forget the GSL fiasco, or the trashing of everything old school. Yanking of PDF's with no notice?(granted they did have a recovery day, but their still gone as far as I know).

The base has fragmented. Its never coming back together again. I think Scott is great, but Scott isnt the company as a whole, and judging by its past actions, I dont think WotC wants, nor cares about anything but the new hotness.

No, I dont think Wizards understand the hobby history at all, judging by its past actions. And I dont think it will. Individials like Scott? Sure. The company? Not going to learn. Not unless its their bottom line that is in danger, and then maybe they might learn.

But ultimately the base is split, and not coming back.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> The problem, I think, was the distributors. As 4E got near, they said "we hope there wont be a glut again like with 3E" and I think that really threw Wizards and I think that got the GSL off track. Then, when 4E launched without 3Ps, those same distributors said "hey, there arent any products to support this new line." And now when you talk to them about doing products they say "there's no established track record and sales suck." Its like a self-fulfilling prophesy.




This is the important dynamic to look for in business. Good point.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> You did. But unfortunately, it WAS too late, and a few people were thinking so.
> 
> But I want to address one point in your last post:
> 
> ...




That´s appropriately doom´n´gloom of you, but the "trashing of everything oldschool" left me a little bit surprised. Who trashed everything oldschool again? Did i miss something?


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 19, 2009)

> But ultimately the base is split, and not coming back.




Saying that the base is split, doesn't that imply some sort of equality? I mean, if WotC lost 5% of it's customers due to 4e, you could hardly say that the fanbase is split, right?


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> That´s appropriately doom´n´gloom of you, but the "trashing of everything oldschool" left me a little bit surprised. Who trashed everything oldschool again? Did i miss something?





Were you not awake during the 4e hype days from Wotc? Everything old was bad and 4e was the new hotness to make everythinhg better.

Thats the impression WOtc left one with with 4e's hype....


Further, you say its doom and gloom. Prove me wrong. SHOW ME where you think Wotc's actions to date have shown any inclusion type items or words.

I'm betting you cant.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Saying that the base is split, doesn't that imply some sort of equality? I mean, if WotC lost 5% of it's customers due to 4e, you could hardly say that the fanbase is split, right?




While I most certainly dont think its a 50-50 split, or even a 60-40 split, I highly doubt also its barely 5% either.....

Perhaps fragmented is a better word.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Saying that the base is split, doesn't that imply some sort of equality? I mean, if WotC lost 5% of it's customers due to 4e, you could hardly say that the fanbase is split, right?




When the idea of only a 30-40% conversion rate from 3e to 4e gets tossed around, it's not a stretch to think that the fanbase is split quite a bit. Gaining enough new people to make up for that sort of fragmentation is the question, and I can only speculate if WotC is doing so.


----------



## avin (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players. How much would it rule to see some of the old handbooks revised and reprinted (for those who want them)?




Or, at least, PDFs of them.

In special Monster Manuals.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players. How much would it rule to see some of the old handbooks revised and reprinted (for those who want them)? How about not tell us waht to play and demean those who dont adopt the new hotness? How about finding a unifying thread of that game? How about a system-neutral world that has run through every edition of D&D prior to now (nudge nudge, a Greyhawk revival that is a setting only, not system specific; how rad would that be, nudge nudge)? Sometimes I wonder if Wizards has learned the lessons of the history of this hobby.




Here's the biggest problem with this:  WotC both changes people too much (over time) and seems to have way too many cooks in the kitchen making these decisions.  The people making decisions today may not even be there tomorrow.  Scott may be the perfect champion for what you want, Clark.  But he also may be working somewhere else tomorrow (or win Powerball or something).  If he's the only champion on the business side, forget any hope of Wizards being the inclusive D&D producer.  

No, D&D needs to be in the hands of a company just big enough to handle it, but not too big that its corporate bureaucracy gets in the way of doing what's both best equally for the bottom line *and* the game.  (And maybe even favoring the game now and again.)

Since that's not likely to happen anytime soon, many of us are looking for other alternatives - whether it's old school stuff like Swords & Wizardry, or the evolution of 3.5 in Pathfinder, which is what many see as the continuation of D&D - just without the brand name.


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 19, 2009)

Carmachu, that's enough harping. You've made your point. 

Everyone, please keep the tone of discussion respectful.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Despite, on numerous occassions, Paizo saying they have no interest in 4e because the system doesn't support the type of stories they want to tell? They're more or less mentioned on several occassions that it's not necessarily the GLS but the system and that they have no people currently working for them that know the 4e system (strange since Wolfgang has published 4e material under his own banner but whatever.)




I think you missed the point of that section.  Clark was referring to the fact that had everything gone smoothly Paizo would have continued to support WotC and embraced 4e.  Unfortunately things didn't go smoothly and fortunately we have Pathfinder as a result.



> So distributors fear a glut, but WoTC could start reprinting all editions? Uh... yeah, not seeing that happening. Now WoTC doing something more awesome like making an OGL for previous editions of the game and letting other people support it? That's more likely but still pie in the sky I believe.




If WotC embraced POD there would be no glut as only those interested in earlier editions would order and purchase the products.  Whether done by WotC or by Lulu, doesn't make a difference as it would be strictly on demand.




> Now we're getting back to glut and printing costs among other things. If Dragon and Dungeon go digital because WoTC wants to make them part of the DDI, I can't see how pushing people towards print products of niche products would be the way to go. And my god! The bitching! Imagine how much a AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook would cost off the line newly printed. People would be weeping in the streets that WoTC is doing things to their backside because that's not what it cost in 1984.




Actually POD costs are reasonable, especially given the size of 1e books or most of 2e.  Cost could also be lowered by the availability of softcover alternatives.



> That new editions come along for virtually all game systems and that most companies don't support the previous editions? Yeah, I think they got that one. (Notable exception is the guys doing Rolemaster with their Rolemaster Classic line. Thumbs up!)




This is a some what flawed view as most publishers try to stick close to the original design for the sole purpose of retaining customer loyalty.  There are quite a few RPGs with revisions and new editions that require very little backward compatibility.  Many of those that do made the proper decision to separate the new edition from the old edition to eliminate the necessity, i.e. WoD changed complete mythology.




> Huge grain amigo. I love Necromancer products. Still convert some ToH beasties now and again for my 4e game. BUT, as you were so gun ho on supporting the latest edition, this whole post seems like it came from Bizzaro Clark. If from the get go you had been on this multiple edition frame, then it would make sense but unless I'm missing something, Necromancer Games isn't doing a Tome of Horrors OSRIC, not Swords and Wizardry, nor Castles and Crusades, etc... If YOU, Clark, feel that there is value in supporting all editions of D&D, step up to the plate man. Let's see those various systems for Tome of Horrors. Let's see you beat wizards at their own game.




Again I think Clark was implying that there are ways for WotC to fix a lot of the division forming within the community and gather back what has already been lost already.  The real focus should be "D&D the game" and not "D&D the edition" which is what everyone has been shouting since 2e hit the streets way back then (heck even I just wanted TSR to edit and hopefully consolidate all the non-setting books and update the settings in 1e).  If WotC brought back earlier editions via POD or even open sourced them, but then supported said product by creating edition neutral material I think they would see a huge resurgence, not just in revenue but in the hobby in general.  

The effective stance would be to sell it like McD, saying "Have it your way."  WotC could sell the core books for whatever the new edition is in store, but make the old editions available through POD for those who just aren't satisfied or don't want change.


----------



## Badwe (Jun 19, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> When the idea of only a 30-40% conversion rate from 3e to 4e gets tossed around, it's not a stretch to think that the fanbase is split quite a bit. Gaining enough new people to make up for that sort of fragmentation is the question, and I can only speculate if WotC is doing so.




and that's all you, or anyone posting regarding a fanbase split has, an idea.  Nobody has real percentages, and pretending we do is a farce.  All anyone has is their own personal experience and knowledge of other players.  If I were to use my own experience, I could easily say 5% because i know a total of 2 people who are 3e holdouts out of 4 groups of 5-6 players playing home groups and going to multiple events with rooms full of people playing 4e LFR from RPGA.  

I know this isn't the reality, I know there is likely a higher percentage of 3e holdouts, and at least another decent percentage (of total D&D players) who are 2e or 1e holdouts.  Beyond that? I can say nothing. I can't tell you the magnitude to which the 3e percentage differs from the 4e, I couldn't even tell you which was higher.  No amount of linking to WSJ top seller or amazon top seller book lists is going to prove it one way or the other, so how about we stop kidding ourselves into thinking it will? Wisdom is knowing what you don't know.

Now, all that aside, necromancer definitely has an uphill battle, as do any 3pp for 4e.  Even with a GSL, 4e doesn't, as others have mentioned, let the 3rd parties into the most exclusive club, moreso than even publishing books: the Character Builder and compendium.  No amount of legal compliance will create a scenario in which 3rd party publishers will be able to seamlessly integrate their items/feats/powers/etc. into the character builder or make them searchable on compendium, and that is a major hit.  It means people fully dedicated to the 4e model are going to be struggling to integrate anything except published adventures into their games.  

In this sense, WotC has been hostile to publishers not by their GSL (though that certainly left plenty of people dissapointed) but by building a better mousetrap.  Of course, it's easy to design source books that work extremely well with your core rules when you significantly overhauled and redesigned those core rules.  Still, I'd hardly call that malice towards 3pp.  Also, I know I as a DM have embraced it because i can get rid of that sense of dread when a player brings me a sourcebook and says "can i play this new class?" and wonder what i'm getting myself into.  I would say in that way WotC almost stole a concept from GURPS (in a _much_ more limited fashion) in that you can pretty easily use every single thing published, even from different settings and have it all add up and work.

All that being said, I would love to see 3pp succeed in 4e. I would like to see a multitude of options for me to have available and for many different takes on the new rules set to emerge.  But as I outlined above... even without the GSL difficulties it wouldn't be easy. Hat's off to Goodman for being the most successful 4e 3pp.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Saying that the base is split, doesn't that imply some sort of equality? I mean, if WotC lost 5% of it's customers due to 4e, you could hardly say that the fanbase is split, right?




Clearly my personal experience is not a good representation.  But my experience is that it is far greater than 5%. 

That is not to say that it is pure loss.  Obviously 4E also gained a significant number of fans that did not play 3E.  So on total number of players the lost 3E players will very much overstate the net fan base impact.

However, when we are specifically talking about comparing 3PP popularity from 3E to 4E, it isn't just total numbers that matter, but the people who make up those numbers and their gaming style that is important.

3E was built as a complex game.  And it was also built in parallel with the OGL.  I suspect the two were pretty much fully independent, but at a minimum the spirit of that type of gaming was at the forefront and the knowledge of this connection was present.  

Of course there will be exceptions (and I think anyone who posts on ENWorld is to some extent an exception by definition), but the 4E fan base, taken as a collective, is less inclined to want more complications in their game than the 3E fan base, taken as a whole collective.  3PP products are often perceived as a complication.  

The whole 3PP thing was on very thin ice to begin with for 4E because it is in conflict with the marketing philosophy of the game's very core.

Of course, WotC then vastly botched the GSL and figuring out which fatal blow killed the victim first may be impossible.

Its funny to me.  A year ago (around the release) I predicted that Goodman would probably do alright because good and ready to run modules fit exactly with the easy-to-prep, simple-to-play game approach.  But I didn't think other kinds of 3PP would resonate with the 4E fan base.  Not enough for market viability.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> To be honest? Its too late. WAY too late. No one is goingto forget the GSL fiasco, or the trashing of everything old school. Yanking of PDF's with no notice?(granted they did have a recovery day, but their still gone as far as I know).
> 
> The base has fragmented. Its never coming back together again. I think Scott is great, but Scott isnt the company as a whole, and judging by its past actions, I dont think WotC wants, nor cares about anything but the new hotness.
> 
> ...




Trashing of everything old school? Isn't that a bit extreme. As for the base being split, you say that as if it was a bad thing. I have been a fan of, and a player of the "stereotypical" D&D game since 2E. From where I was standing, I found the 3E/OGL revolution lacking. While 3E tried to be a toolbox, and tried to bring more under the banner of D&D than at any time before, the core D&D game was watered down. It was watered down by mechanics so complex and fragile they broke down if you stressed them too hard, and it was watered down by too many damn books from too many publishers. There is a different kind of fragmentation, and that is when your game spreads out so thin that the D&D ceases to really mean anything anymore. 



carmachu said:


> Further, you say its doom and gloom. Prove me wrong. SHOW ME where you think Wotc's actions to date have shown any inclusion type items or words.
> 
> I'm betting you cant.




I never argued that 4E was inclusive. In fact, I'd say the opposite. What I would say would be that moving away from inclusion was the correct choice for the game.



Shemeska said:


> When the idea of only a 30-40% conversion rate from 3e to 4e gets tossed around, it's not a stretch to think that the fanbase is split quite a bit. Gaining enough new people to make up for that sort of fragmentation is the question, and I can only speculate if WotC is doing so.




30-40% conversion rate? Are you being serious? After a little over a year, I'd say the conversion rate is about 75%-80%, with new and returning players more than making up the difference. Thats all speculation, but 30-40% is a bit ridiculous.





dm4hire said:


> Again I think Clark was implying that there are ways for WotC to fix a lot of the division forming within the community and gather back what has already been lost already.  The real focus should be "D&D the game" and not "D&D the edition" which is what everyone has been shouting since 2e hit the streets way back then (heck even I just wanted TSR to edit and hopefully consolidate all the non-setting books and update the settings in 1e).  If WotC brought back earlier editions via POD or even open sourced them, but then supported said product by creating edition neutral material I think they would see a huge resurgence, not just in revenue but in the hobby in general.
> 
> The effective stance would be to sell it like McD, saying "Have it your way."  WotC could sell the core books for whatever the new edition is in store, but make the old editions available through POD for those who just aren't satisfied or don't want change.




As I said before, this have it your way approach waters down the game. 3E/OGL was ambitious and inclusive to the point it was harming the core game. Running a stereotypical D&D game became a struggle.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Deserves got nothin to do with it.
> 
> 3e fans _*will *_get more 3pp support than 4e fans, because the OGL is better than the GSL.




Yes.  And...

3e fans _*will *_get more 3pp support than 4e fans, because 3E fans buy 3PP product.

There has been some 4E 3PP.  And far to few 4E fans bought it.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players.



IMO 4E is so very different than 3E that saying you can't support both is comparable to saying that Fantasy Flight can't support both Descent and Arkham Horror.

I realize that is not a perfect analogy.  But the point is, they are very much different games.

I honestly respect the value that 4E brings to players.  I wish there was more respect for what 3E brings to players.  Yeah, I argue a lot.  But if you look you will see I am almost always standing up for what 3E did better for my game.

I'd love to see the quick start, easy to DM D&D living happily alongside the detailed nuts and bolts D&D.

(And before someone accuses me of whining, yes, I have tons of awesome 3E stuff and Paizo rocks, so I'm a very happy person.  But it could be even better.  I could have all that and even more)


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 19, 2009)

This is sad news.

However you slice it, I see this as bad news for 4e.


In fact, though it is bad news for Necromancer, they still have Pathfinder, and also, as has been pointed out, it is not Clarke's or Bill's main job.

But for 4e? No Necromancer. No Green Ronin. No Malhavoc. No Paizo. No Privateer Press. No Paradigm Concepts. Hardly any Mongoose. Margaret Weiss's Dragonlance...nope. Arthaus/sword and sorcery? (I have every 3e ravenloft book.) Nope. Fantasy Flight games? Nope. 

While there was a lot of schlock, the companies I mentioned above* didn't put out schlock. They were (and are) good, solid companies with good, solid products. A better, well timed GSL could have resulted in much more from all of them.
*(with the possible exception of some of the Mongoose stuff since they put out so much...and much was high quality)


I own several hundred 3e books. I own 4 4e books.  I don't see that ratio changing much. The same sad phenomenon that led to the need for this thread is the reason for this. 


Also, I'll agree with some others. The market is fragmented. It isn't coming back. WotC would have to become very customer friendly and basically either bend over backwards for inclusion or sell the IP/rights to another company to get it back at this point.


I respect you Clark, and I really respect Necromancer products, but I'll also agree with JoeGKushner in regard to the "every edition of D&D" versus 4e comments. Haven't you been stating for about a year or more now that Necromancer wants to support "the current edition of D&D"? That's the one part of what you said that doesn't make sense to me.

If Necro is a labor of love rather than a real need to make money, why not just make the products you want to make without concern about distributors? There are options for print on demand, distribution via the web (your site and Paizo's for instance), pdf only products, etc.

I guess I don't get why WotC should support every edition but Necro should only support the current one, and it was so important that the company waited until this point (when it has unfortunately become too late) to do so.

In any case, I don't mean to put the screws to you too much. I wish you and Necro the best. Also, and this is not a "Go Pathfinder, BOO 4e" comment: Why not capitalize on the good timing of the Pathfinder license? With enough support, distributors might see this as a new phenomenon ready to take off. 

Good luck to you, and here's hoping that there's many more Necro products coming out soon.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> But ultimately the base is split, and not coming back.




Wonderful thread!  And I think your comments very well considered.  However, I will venture to disagree with the above quote, if you meant it to apply to more than 4e.

I agree the D&D audience has been split by 4e and 4e cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

5e may be able to do so, however.

2e left the D&D universe underwhelmed toward the end but 3e found a way to bring people back to the table.  5e might be able to do the same, by different or the same strategies.  Or not.

I say, "Bring on 5e!"  If nothing else, it will give Clark something to cheerlead for.   I think he is on to something when he posits Wotc as "The D&D Company" but I think it would take a new edition to make that more than a slogan.  Wotc handling of 4e has burned bridges, IMO, and such a tactic now would not be presently credible.  A new edition would offer the possibility of a fresh start, particluarly if lessons from the 4e rollout are learned.  So - 5EEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 19, 2009)

Badwe said:


> ... snip ...
> In this sense, WotC has been hostile to publishers not by their GSL (though that certainly left plenty of people dissapointed) but by building a better mousetrap.
> ... snip ...




I dunno.  Building 3rd party extensibility into the DDI seems to me to much more of a better mousetrap than one which only gets input from WotC.  Isn't that a key part of digital initiatives -- to harness the vast power of the online market?


----------



## ggroy (Jun 19, 2009)

GVDammerung said:


> Wonderful thread!  And I think your comments very well considered.  However, I will venture to disagree with the above quote, if you meant it to apply to more than 4e.
> 
> I agree the D&D audience has been split by 4e and 4e cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
> 
> ...




Releasing a 5E D&D so soon, would be the equivalent of WotC "waving a white flag".  It would be implicitly saying that 4E was a disaster.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 3E/OGL was ambitious and inclusive to the point it was harming the core game. Running a stereotypical D&D game became a struggle.



I disagree with this statement as much as is humanly possible.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

dm4hire said:


> The effective stance would be to sell it like McD, saying "Have it your way."  WotC could sell the core books for whatever the new edition is in store, but make the old editions available through POD for those who just aren't satisfied or don't want change.




but "Have it your way" only applies to items on the menu. You're not going into McD and getting a skirt steak no matter how much you insist it's 'your way."


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> As I said before, this have it your way approach waters down the game. 3E/OGL was ambitious and inclusive to the point it was harming the core game. Running a stereotypical D&D game became a struggle.




I'm trying to understand how it would water down the game?  If WotC sells current edition, in this case 4e, in stores only and older editions via POD there is no conflict?  The current core material such as PHB, DMG, MM, and <insert campaign name> Player's Guide is available to the public and marketed to those who want the "new hotness" and still leaves older stuff available for those players who want it.

Having the actual campaign book neutral in respects to the mechanics allows the base product to appeal to not just new edition players but older edition players as well.  Currently the logic of most players is, "why should I pay for a campaign book that has a large portion of material I don't want?"  A neutral campaign suddenly opens that market up as WotC can sell not only the 4e Player's guide but could provide a guide for past editions as well as licensing it out for other game conversions.

As I mentioned, Green Ronin's Freeport is a perfect working example of a neutral campaign.  Currently there are guides for 3e, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, C&C, to name a few and a 4e guide is supposedly in the works via license.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I disagree with this statement as much as is humanly possible.





Agreed. There were many 3PP that kept me in the D&D fold rather than going elsewher in the gaming world. I know I cant be alone there.


----------



## Qualidar (Jun 19, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 30-40% conversion rate? Are you being serious? After a little over a year, I'd say the conversion rate is about 75%-80%, with new and returning players more than making up the difference. Thats all speculation, but 30-40% is a bit ridiculous.




It's _all_ anecdotal. Of the 19 people I game with regularly, 2 are in ongoing 4e games. Does that mean the conversion rate is only 10%?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Its funny to me.  A year ago (around the release) I predicted that Goodman would probably do alright because good and ready to run modules fit exactly with the easy-to-prep, simple-to-play game approach.  But I didn't think other kinds of 3PP would resonate with the 4E fan base.  Not enough for market viability.




I think that's nonsense.

If Green Ronin produced the Book of Fiends right out the gate and if Creature Catalog hit right out the gate alongside Tome of Horrors, those books would have sold.

Part of the 'real' problem is that WoTC, even with the OGL, still controlled the market by being the big dog. If it shakes, the fleas fall off. Those companies that conintue to do well do so on brand recognition, individual name recognition, and by getting away from WoTC d20 system and making their own OGL variants. Green Ronin mentioned dozens, if not hundreds of times, along with others, that when 3.5 came along, it killed their catalog sales.

I don't recall 3PP all branding together and vowing to fight 3.5 by sticking to the OGL that most closely resembled 3.0.

Instead they get it in the sack, puked, and picked up the pieces.

Those that had strong name recognition were able to weather the storm. Those that had strong name recognition and wanted to be more than just a 3PP saw the writing on the wall. If WoTC could do it once, they could do it again. (And they did with 4e.)

It's much more than... 'merely' certain styles of books not being a good fit for 4e in my opinion.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 19, 2009)

I think that given the economy, and lack of non-Goodman 4E 3pp FLGS enthusiasm, and the lapse in time since the last Necromancer product, that getting a new Necro 4E product onto game store shelves and selling it, would be a full time job. 

Clack and Co. have full time jobs. So they'd rather write stuff that will sell with less effort on the selling side. 

There was a time when Necromancer products sold themselves. Now Clark & Co. have to select the niches where that is still true.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

dm4hire said:


> As I mentioned, Green Ronin's Freeport is a perfect working example of a neutral campaign.  Currently there are guides for 3e, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, C&C, to name a few and a 4e guide is supposedly in the works via license.




But Green Ronin isn't doing it. This is important. They're not doing ANY generic books this year. This indicates to me that it's not a runaway success. This is probably more true of people who play several game systems. If you run C&C and D&D3e and D&D4e, how many of the mechanical sourcebooks are you going to buy?

The fact that Green Ronin hasn't continued making system neutral games to me, argues that it's not as profitible as making specific system supplements such as Mutants & Masterminds or A Game of Thrones.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

Well if you look at it properly they have done a new True20 product and it's inclusion in Warriors & Warlocks for M&M is also a product placement.  Green Ronin is still doing stuff for it, but the campaign is still neutral and therefore doesn't need them to continue.  Basically they tossed out the book into the middle of the ring and said have at it.  We're sticking with our products but anyone is welcome to take a shot at doing products for it.  C&C and the forth coming 4e books shows that others are stepping up to the plate and taking a shot.

As for my McD analogy I think of it more as WotC is the current owners of the chain.  It's up to them what stays on the menu and what comes off.  Right now there are a lot of customers that want older stuff to come back onto the menu and they should take advantage of that, even if it would only be special orders.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> While I most certainly dont think its a 50-50 split, or even a 60-40 split, I highly doubt also its barely 5% either.....
> 
> Perhaps fragmented is a better word.






Shemeska said:


> When the idea of only a 30-40% conversion rate from 3e to 4e gets tossed around, it's not a stretch to think that the fanbase is split quite a bit. Gaining enough new people to make up for that sort of fragmentation is the question, and I can only speculate if WotC is doing so.






BryonD said:


> Clearly my personal experience is not a good representation.  But my experience is that it is far greater than 5%.
> 
> That is not to say that it is pure loss.  Obviously 4E also gained a significant number of fans that did not play 3E.  So on total number of players the lost 3E players will very much overstate the net fan base impact.
> 
> ...




Just for the record, I do not think either that the "split" is 95-5. I was merely exaggerating in order to find out what was meant by "the fanbase is split", because it sounded to me as if it was an (ballpark) 50-50 split that was implied, which I thought was a bit odd.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

dm4hire said:


> Well if you look at it properly they have done a new True20 product and it's inclusion in Warriors & Warlocks for M&M is also a product placement.  Green Ronin is still doing stuff for it, but the campaign is still neutral and therefore doesn't need them to continue.  Basically they tossed out the book into the middle of the ring and said have at it.  We're sticking with our products but anyone is welcome to take a shot at doing products for it.  C&C and the forth coming 4e books shows that others are stepping up to the plate and taking a shot.
> 
> As for my McD analogy I think of it more as WotC is the current owners of the chain.  It's up to them what stays on the menu and what comes off.  Right now there are a lot of customers that want older stuff to come back onto the menu and they should take advantage of that, even if it would only be special orders.




Yeah, and a lot of customer's want the McLean back on the menu too. 

It's a nice daydream, but WoTC isn't even selling it's current in print books via PDF/POD. Why would they model two business systems when they don't have to?


----------



## Voadam (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> But Green Ronin isn't doing it. This is important. They're not doing ANY generic books this year. This indicates to me that it's not a runaway success. This is probably more true of people who play several game systems. If you run C&C and D&D3e and D&D4e, how many of the mechanical sourcebooks are you going to buy?
> 
> The fact that Green Ronin hasn't continued making system neutral games to me, argues that it's not as profitible as making specific system supplements such as Mutants & Masterminds or A Game of Thrones.




Eh, I don't have any numbers but I expect the statless Pirate's Guide was a huge success. It has tons of support from GR. I expect very few would buy a C&C or a 3rd Era or a 4e Freeport rules support book without first having the Freeport book itself.

Statless seems suited for story and flavor element things so settings are a natural and their cult and NPC description books seem like good fits as well but some types of products do much better with rules material: splats, adventures, monsters, NPCs you expect to enter combat, etc.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 19, 2009)

Have it your way is not McDonald's slogan, it is Burger Kings.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Yes.  And...
> 
> 3e fans _*will *_get more 3pp support than 4e fans, because 3E fans buy 3PP product.
> 
> There has been some 4E 3PP.  And far to few 4E fans bought it.




And the reason why (and I think many people are still not seriously considering) is the char builder. Unless a 3PP's stuff becomes part of the char builder, you're going to find many more DMs just saying "no" to 3rd party products even if the GSL had been a verbatim copy of the OGL.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Have it your way is not McDonald's slogan, it is Burger Kings.




Oh sure, turn this into a food war!


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> And the reason why (and I think many people are still not seriously considering) is the char builder. Unless a 3PP's stuff becomes part of the char builder, you're going to find many more DMs just saying "no" to 3rd party products even if the GSL had been a verbatim copy of the OGL.




I'm not seeing this as much of a problem as believed.  DDI doesn't seem to have the following it's believed to have and seems to be losing more daily.  Course it's hard to prove or refute as we'll never see the numbers.  I only know of about four players out of the twenty or so players I game with admit to using it.  That may change but then again it might not.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Way off the mark, in my opinion.
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, but 4e doesn't allow Clark to "tell the kinds of stories he wants to tell."
> 
> ...




None of that is included in his reasons.  He gives his reasons in the OP, and it's not "I don't like 4e".  I think you might have him confused with Paizo.  Clark has had enthusiasm for 4e.  He has plenty of stories he wants to tell through 4e apparently.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Eh, I don't have any numbers but I expect the statless Pirate's Guide was a huge success. It has tons of support from GR. I expect very few would buy a C&C or a 3rd Era or a 4e Freeport rules support book without first having the Freeport book itself.
> 
> Statless seems suited for story and flavor element things so settings are a natural and their cult and NPC description books seem like good fits as well but some types of products do much better with rules material: splats, adventures, monsters, NPCs you expect to enter combat, etc.




So it was such a huge success that they haven't made any other systemless settings? 

Strange. When some companies find something that's highly profitible, they continue doing it.

Green Ronin has tons of books for settings that could get this style treatment ranging form their elf setting to the isle of psionicists (that got kicked in the neitherregions by the 3.5 switch), to book of the righteous. That they haven't speaks volumes.

Unless I'm way off base, companies don't go, "you know, while we'd sell thousands more of this book, let's instead do this one."


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> I dunno.  Building 3rd party extensibility into the DDI seems to me to much more of a better mousetrap than one which only gets input from WotC.  Isn't that a key part of digital initiatives -- to harness the vast power of the online market?




I'd love to see DDI expandable to encompass 3p products. Perhaps with a product key included with a hardcopy of a book.  I don't think it's going to happen, but I'd love to see it happen.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, wouldn't the biggest obstacle for 3PP be the total lack of support on the char builder?
> 
> Seriously, look at the online 4e games and they seem to ALWAYS say "char builder-legal". Moreso than the GSL, this is what kills off 3PP support IMO.




Not sure that is the biggest obstacle, but it is the one most focused on new 3P classes or powers. I told Scott I thought the Character Builder was great. In a perfect world (which we dont live in) I'd love to see an open plug in for people to create homebrew content (or 3P content) that they could plug into CharBuilder. That would solve that problem


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Which means, ultimately, Necro was irrelevant to the general market for what, a year before 4e?




I dont know about a year before, but definately the year after


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

Qualidar said:


> It's _all_ anecdotal. Of the 19 people I game with regularly, 2 are in ongoing 4e games. Does that mean the conversion rate is only 10%?




He said it was all speculation.  But, I agree with him the rate is higher than 30-40% merely from the fact that WOTC still exists and publishes D&D.  I think it's safe to say that, while we do not know the exact percentage, it's high enough to have given WOTC at least relatively "decent" sales based on all those best seller listings and the fact that WOTC continues as scheduled and appears to be doing at least "OK".

I don't understand why this issue keeps coming up however.  Do people want WOTC to have failed with 4e, and are claiming the conversion rate is low and sales are low somehow a helpful thing from their world view? What is the point of that discussion?


----------



## Voadam (Jun 19, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> And the reason why (and I think many people are still not seriously considering) is the char builder. Unless a 3PP's stuff becomes part of the char builder, you're going to find many more DMs just saying "no" to 3rd party products even if the GSL had been a verbatim copy of the OGL.




That would only apply to character mechanics though.

This wouldn't affect most modules

Monster books have a separate issue as I believe there is a DDI function for monster stats and searching by type infor.


----------



## Harlekin (Jun 19, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> This is sad news.
> 
> However you slice it, I see this as bad news for 4e.




I think this is mostly bad news for any stripe of 3rd party support. If distributors are reluctant now to carry 3p support of D&D, what makes anybody think that they will be more likely to carry 3p material for the less known pathfinder? 

3p products for D&D survived because a small proportion of the big market share of D&D was enough to support them. If the market has fragmented, so has that market share. It seems unlikely that pathfinder will recover more than 30% of that market share (and it will likely be a lot less), as it has competition both from 4th edition and existing supplements for 3.x. 

Paizo would be ecstatic if they could get 20%-30% of 3.x's sales; that would make them the second biggest RPG company out there. But 3p (print) publishers supporting pathfinder would operate on a market that is only 20%-30% of the original 3.x market, which will make it very hard for any of them to make a profit.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jun 19, 2009)

Sunderstone said:


> Not sure if this is ok to post here, we thought some would want to know (Hope Clark is ok with me linking/quoting this)...
> 
> Posted by Orcus 6/17/09  Necro Update -- 4E print not looking good, but still possible - General Discussion - General - Necromancer Games - Message Board - Yuku




Sorry Clark that things aren't working out for you. I can't wait to see what you'll be releasing though as I've been a major fan of Necro's stuff ever since The Wizard's Amulet.


----------



## Falstaff (Jun 19, 2009)

Clark:

I asked this a few pages back, but it might have gotten lost in the mix.

Are there any chances that Necromancer will produce adventures or supplements for the new HackMaster RPG? To me they seem like a good fit.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I respect you Clark, and I really respect Necromancer products, but I'll also agree with JoeGKushner in regard to the "every edition of D&D" versus 4e comments. Haven't you been stating for about a year or more now that Necromancer wants to support "the current edition of D&D"? That's the one part of what you said that doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> If Necro is a labor of love rather than a real need to make money, why not just make the products you want to make without concern about distributors? There are options for print on demand, distribution via the web (your site and Paizo's for instance), pdf only products, etc.
> 
> I guess I don't get why WotC should support every edition but Necro should only support the current one, and it was so important that the company waited until this point (when it has unfortunately become too late) to do so.




Thats a good question. 

The main reason is because I am not Wizards. I dont have the choice to do that. I dont believe I can legally support 1E or 2E (I dont want to start taht discussion again, but people know I believe OSRIC is problematic). So that gives me the only choice of supporting 3E or 4E. The only company that can support all editions is Wizards. I also dont have the real ability to do that. We are a small company with limited resources. To some extent, also, we have to follow the lead of Wizards. if they abandon 3.5 its hard for us to keep supporting it. I want to support a thriving system. And since we model ourselves on Judges Guild, we believe in the evolution of the game. That, in my view, is different than the decision of the owner of the game deciding not to support prior editions. I believe the only company that can support all systems is Wizards. 

That's my answer, and I think its consistent with my prior positions. I want to support the current version of the game, phlisophically. But one of the problems I see for D&D is its abandonment of prior editions by the company that owns D&D. I cant fix that. Only they can fix that. And I hope they do. I hope they become the company of D&D rather thant he company of 4E.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 19, 2009)

Badwe said:


> and that's all you, or anyone posting regarding a fanbase split has, an idea.  Nobody has real percentages, and pretending we do is a farce.  All anyone has is their own personal experience and knowledge of other players.




Actually the 30-40% number wasn't from my own experience (I'd be prone to give WotC at least 60%) but was a number mentioned to me by a WotC employee. Mind, they were a DDI developer rather than one of the designers or business folks, so I have no way to know if that figure was something they'd pulled out of thin air, or it was a number that was in use internally. But coming from a 4e fan working for WotC, and being so low, doesn't lend itself to kind things about the fanbase solidity.


----------



## Mark (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> To some extent, also, we have to follow the lead of Wizards. if they abandon 3.5 its hard for us to keep supporting it.





Interesting stance.  Everyone knows best what they can and cannot do, so I am not questioning this stance.  I am sure it is the correct choice for you.

I also understand the trepidation regarding the retro-clones, as some call them, but wonder why WotC hasn't moved on them if they are in some area a violation?  This must be something you have discussed in your many conversations with WotC personages.

I guess my question, since you are fielding them, is if there are other OGL games out there that you have played (aside from Pathfinder) that you might consider supporting (some GR game or elsewise).


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

Falstaff said:


> Clark:
> 
> I asked this a few pages back, but it might have gotten lost in the mix.
> 
> Are there any chances that Necromancer will produce adventures or supplements for the new HackMaster RPG? To me they seem like a good fit.




I dont think so, and that's not a swipe at Hackmaster at all which is cool.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

Mark said:


> I guess my question, since you are fielding them, is if there are other OGL games out there that you have played (aside from Pathfinder) that you might consider supporting (some GR game or elsewise).




I dont think so. We havent before. Frankly, I'm a D&D fan. It was initially hard for me to even consider supporting Pathfinder. But I have so much respect for Paizo and Erik Mona and James Jacobs and company and I know that their game really contains the heart of 3E D&D I came around. But my number one goal is to support D&D. That;s just where I'm at.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So it was such a huge success that they haven't made any other systemless settings?
> 
> Strange. When some companies find something that's highly profitible, they continue doing it.
> 
> ...




I dunno, is the upcoming 256 page Song of Fire and Ice Campaign Guide going to be statless, stat-lite or stat heavy with NPC and kingdom stats?

I seem to recall Chris saying a few years ago when it was first anounced that it would be statless but I can't find the reference so my memory may be faulty here (tinged by my preference?) and/or plans may have changed. Or not, we'll see when it comes out (or Chris says one way or the other) I guess.


----------



## FunkBGR (Jun 19, 2009)

Clark - 

Isn't the complaint about distributors editionless? 

Also - I always thought it was a given that Pathfinder sells way less than 4e, just because it's not "prime time" D&D or mainstream D&D or whatever. 

Erik and James have popped on the forums explaining how they can't sell in big box stores because they're on a different scale of economy. 

Maybe I misread your earlier posts - and I'm definitely not trying to attack you or anything. I just wanted some clarification. 

Isn't Pathfinder having the same problems with distribution?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> I think that's nonsense.
> 
> If Green Ronin produced the Book of Fiends right out the gate and if Creature Catalog hit right out the gate alongside Tome of Horrors, those books would have sold.



OK.  I think you may be wrong.

That said, I will caveat that the established names may very well have had some home runs right out of the gate if they had come out fast and hard.  But I still think that great publishers producing great product would have a much harder time finding buyers for on-going products.



> Part of the 'real' problem is that WoTC, even with the OGL, still controlled the market by being the big dog. If it shakes, the fleas fall off. Those companies that conintue to do well do so on brand recognition, individual name recognition, and by getting away from WoTC d20 system and making their own OGL variants. Green Ronin mentioned dozens, if not hundreds of times, along with others, that when 3.5 came along, it killed their catalog sales.
> 
> I don't recall 3PP all branding together and vowing to fight 3.5 by sticking to the OGL that most closely resembled 3.0.
> 
> ...



Apples and oranges.
Yes. 3.5 put a major hits on 3.0 back stock and put everything in a tailspin.

The truth of that is in no way incompatible with the lack of appeal of 4E 3PP stuff to the overall market.

After 3.5 came out, new stuff clearly marked as 3.5 still sold.  The weight of the impact, both to the finances of the 3PPs and the portion of the market that was ticked, both assured that things never went fully back.  Plus, 3.5 was still 3X, so a lot of people were flush with product.  Those things hurt.  But the 3.5 market was still viable for a few years.  The 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA.  Even for those publishers who did dive right in.

If it was the same as 3.5, then sales should be BETTER for a whole new game, not far worse.

I am 100% certain that you personally, Joe, would buy the stuff you are talking about.  And I'm 100% a lot of other 4E fans reading this here on ENWorld would.  But every one of you added together doesn't make nearly enough.  The nature of the game and the nature of the fan base, as a whole, are very different.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> And the reason why (and I think many people are still not seriously considering) is the char builder. Unless a 3PP's stuff becomes part of the char builder, you're going to find many more DMs just saying "no" to 3rd party products even if the GSL had been a verbatim copy of the OGL.



Yeah, that has to pile on.  

But I still remain convinced that the same basic result would exist even without the builder.


----------



## Wicht (Jun 19, 2009)

FunkBGR said:


> Erik and James have popped on the forums explaining how they can't sell in big box stores because they're on a different scale of economy.
> [snip]
> Isn't Pathfinder having the same problems with distribution?




Actually I understood that the problem for Paizo was that at the end of the magazine run they did not have the distribution framework in place for selling books in the stores.  They are just now getting that in place and are hoping to be in bigger stores.  

For what its worth Books-a-Million already carries Paizo books.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 19, 2009)

FunkBGR said:


> Isn't Pathfinder having the same problems with distribution?




Good question. Right now Pathfinder is an unknown quantity, but Paizo isnt. They get a lot of love and people are enthusiastic about it. I think the distributor support is there more for that than for 3P 4E stuff. Its hard to say. It may be that the same exact problems will exist there too. Right now, thats not my belief.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Just for the record, I do not think either that the "split" is 95-5. I was merely exaggerating in order to find out what was meant by "the fanbase is split", because it sounded to me as if it was an (ballpark) 50-50 split that was implied, which I thought was a bit odd.





No not even close to 50/50....but one could say its significant enough to take note of. Its not something I would dismiss and ignore. Its certainly not like the shift from 2nd to 3rd, where as most jumped folward.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I dont believe I can legally support 1E or 2E (I dont want to start taht discussion again, but people know I believe OSRIC is problematic).



OSRIC is not the only way to support TSR-era D&D.  For example, you've previously said that you think the OGL-only "1e compatible" approach that Goodman Games took with their 1e compatible DCC modules didn't suffer from the same problems that you perceive in OSRIC:


			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> This is not legal advice, but I see absolutely no problem with doing what was proposed above (OGL adventures using 1E terms also contained in the SRD with no OSRIC at all). Just refer to the monster names and to class names and things like that. Leave out the 3E stat blocks. And you've got yourself a 1E compatible module without any of the problems of OSRIC. You've always been able to do that with the OGL. In fact, you could even probably put a "compatible with the 'old school' edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game" on your product...I absolutely think you can do that.




(And there's the similar approach taken by C&C, which uses the OGL to publish rules that are very similar to TSR D&D -- so much so that it's relatively simple to interchange material between C&C and TSR D&D.)



> We are a small company with limited resources. To some extent, also, we have to follow the lead of Wizards...And since we model ourselves on Judges Guild, we believe in the evolution of the game.



Evolution of the game aside, I note that Judges Guild has partnered with Adventure Games Publishing to release JG material under C&C rules.  And Goodman is working with Black Blade to release 1e compatible modules, using the OGL-only approach you saw no problem with -- no OSRIC in sight.  I don't think a small company needs to shackle itself to Wizards.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Just for the record, I do not think either that the "split" is 95-5. I was merely exaggerating in order to find out what was meant by "the fanbase is split", because it sounded to me as if it was an (ballpark) 50-50 split that was implied, which I thought was a bit odd.




Understood.  I don't think putting a number on it is even particularly meaningful because the group of people being discussed has changed.  

I do think, speaking in purely qualitative terms, that there is more of a split between groups of self-described "D&D gamers" than ever before.  Yes, there was a split long ago, long before anyone ever said 3E.  And split continued through 3E.  But if nothing else, 3X hold-outs have simply joined the ranks with pre-3E hold-outs, increasing the "non-current-edition" slice right there alone.  But also, purely imo, the slice of hold outs is quite significant this time around.

And that doesn't even get into the people who have simply moved on to games not called "D&D" (or directly derived from D&D).


----------



## carmachu (Jun 19, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Actually I understood that the problem for Paizo was that at the end of the magazine run they did not have the distribution framework in place for selling books in the stores. They are just now getting that in place and are hoping to be in bigger stores.
> 
> For what its worth Books-a-Million already carries Paizo books.





I've seen a couple oftheir titles at Barnes and Noble. Creatures revisited and the world book.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

Pretty sure I read on their forums that PF will be in all major US outlets as far as B&N and Borders chains.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> But for 4e? No Necromancer. No Green Ronin. No Malhavoc. No Paizo. No Privateer Press. No Paradigm Concepts. Hardly any Mongoose. Margaret Weiss's Dragonlance...nope. Arthaus/sword and sorcery? (I have every 3e ravenloft book.) Nope. Fantasy Flight games? Nope.




It's worth pointing out that many of those companies/imprints no longer publish for D&D 3e anymore, either.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 19, 2009)

I saw the PF carrion king book at Borders. That plus a ton of 4e and NWoD plus some Dark Heresy books. So they were one of four publishers in the RPG section.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Apples and oranges.
> Yes. 3.5 put a major hits on 3.0 back stock and put everything in a tailspin.
> 
> The truth of that is in no way incompatible with the lack of appeal of 4E 3PP stuff to the overall market.




Eh? Didn't Green Ronin and Mongoose directly state that part of the reason they were doing their own thing away from d20 was so that they wouldn't be shackled to what WoTC did wit hthe D&D game?




BryonD said:


> After 3.5 came out, new stuff clearly marked as 3.5 still sold.



 But with few exceptions, nowhere near the volume of previous products.



BryonD said:


> The weight of the impact, both to the finances of the 3PPs and the portion of the market that was ticked, both assured that things never went fully back.



 So you agree that still solid isn't the same as selling strong?"



BryonD said:


> Plus, 3.5 was still 3X, so a lot of people were flush with product.  Those things hurt.  But the 3.5 market was still viable for a few years.  The 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA.  Even for those publishers who did dive right in.



 Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?



BryonD said:


> If it was the same as 3.5, then sales should be BETTER for a whole new game, not far worse.



 Agreed. And as Goodman said, they were better than 3.5 sales. And as WoTC seems to prove on numerous occassions, they've hit best seller lists and sold out of multiple items. Now there is no proof either way to indicate superior or worse sales than 3.5 but charting products and selling out is always better than not doing so no?



BryonD said:


> I am 100% certain that you personally, Joe, would buy the stuff you are talking about.  And I'm 100% a lot of other 4E fans reading this here on ENWorld would.  But every one of you added together doesn't make nearly enough.  The nature of the game and the nature of the fan base, as a whole, are very different.




Eh? Which part of the fan base are you talking about here? The part that wants 1e reprinted as POD? The fan base that is already playing 4e? The fan base that will only play official WoTC products?

But that does make for an interesting possible fork.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 19, 2009)

dm4hire said:


> Pretty sure I read on their forums that PF will be in all major US outlets as far as B&N and Borders chains.




Though wishful thinking on my part, it would be great if the Pathfinder core book becomes an "evergreen" title.

None of the "big box" bookstores nearby have much of an rpg secton beyond WotC products, other than some old Everquest rpg books still on the shelves that nobody seems to pay attention to.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So it was such a huge success that they haven't made any other systemless settings?




I see it as entirely reasonable for Freeport to have been successful, but it not to be an easily reproducible success. 

I think the biggest thing is that Freeport was an established brand, with a good-size fanbase, lots of previous books, etc.; it seems to me like doing a systemless book describing a setting with an existing fanbase would be less risky than a systemless book describing an entirely new setting. The other settings they published aren't so well-known, AFAIK. You couldn't remember the names of any of 'em, and neither could I -- I had to google to come up with Mindshadows. 

The only other widely-recognized GR setting that I can think of is Freedom City, but there seems to be much less call for a systemless superhero setting. Most superhero games have their own settings, or just use a generic "today, with supers, like in Marvel/DC/etc" setting. 

Also, the older versions of Freeport were long out of date, and for 3.0. Thus, an update was warranted when it came time to republish, and since GR had a few systems it could conceivably use (3.5, True20, wait for the upcoming 4e), a systemless book made sense. Freedom City is up to date with the current M&M system, so no updates are needed, and GR only has the one superhero system. 

If GR wanted to license FC for other RPG versions, they could do that now, without the systemless book. I just don't think there's a big call for it -- Hero has a few Champions setting books, SW's super rules are tied up in a very specific setting/adventure path, and the other superhero RPGs are indie press books that use generic "just like your favorite comics" settings (and aren't likely to be huge sellers to boot).

Also, GR's spending their capital on other books (Song of Ice and Fire, Dragon Age, etc.) that they probably figure are better bets than Generic Setting That Even Internet Fans Can't Remember The Name Of. 

That said, systemless books have historically, AFAIK, sold worse than non-systemless books. Which is fairly reasonable -- given the choice between Setting A, which is generic and systemless, and Setting B, which has stats for Your Favorite Game, I think most gamers will go for B, as it's easiest for them to use.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> That said, systemless books have historically, AFAIK, sold worse than non-systemless books. Which is fairly reasonable -- given the choice between Setting A, which is generic and systemless, and Setting B, which has stats for Your Favorite Game, I think most gamers will go for B, as it's easiest for them to use.




Which is my point.

Which pretty much shoots in the head any idea that systemless setting books are the way to go.

Don't get me wrong. I love 'em. I have a ton of the ole Grimtooth Traps and Citibooks and even some of those old Gygax Infinitie Productions (Town of Baldemir or something along those lines and Aeshiba, greek Africa), along with several Lenetia books.

Not to mention Freeport systemless (as well as the d20 version.) 

Often times, from my own personal experience, it's more work to make some statless monster/spell/character/magic item work in the game you're running unless it's a pure point buy system. 

It's seems to suggest systemless is not the way to go, especially if you have any of your own IP to utilize. Systemless is wrong and will sell less against a product designed specifically for a given system.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?




Present sales being significantly better than at the tail end of 3.5E wouldn't be too surprising.  According to my sources, they all mentioned that 3.5E book sales (both WotC and 3pp) literally "fell off a cliff" after 4E was announced in August 2007.  The period from Aug 2007 to when the 4E core books were first released in June 2008, were dreadful times with tons of inventory which hardly moved at all without huge discounts (ie. bargain bins).

Comparing present sales figures to the "rock bottom" period isn't exactly saying much.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Present sales being significantly better than at the tail end of 3.5E wouldn't be too surprising.  According to my sources, they all mentioned that 3.5E book sales (both WotC and 3pp) literally "fell off a cliff" after 4E was announced in August 2007.  The period from Aug 2007 to when the 4E core books were first released in June 2008, were dreadful times with tons of inventory which hardly moved at all without huge discounts (ie. bargain bins).
> 
> Comparing present sales figures to the "rock bottom" period isn't exactly saying much.






> The 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA.




Isn't exactly saying much?

When the quote in question is 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA, it's wrong. And "is saying much". At least in Goodman's case.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 19, 2009)

We don't know how split the fanbase is, and the only people that could give us a reasonable estimate (WotC) won't. It ain't 5%, and it ain't 50%, but it lies somewhere inbetween. 

But it's enough to generate a huge ammount of support for the Pathfinder line. Two years after the announcement of 4th ed (and what should have been the deathknell for 3rd ed 3pp), Paizo has grown from 2 magazines to a line of cards, books, adventures, adventure paths, licensed minis and more. They have subscriptions for not only their Adventure Paths (the direct inheritors for the old magazines) but for maps, cards, stand alone adventures and campaign setting materials. 

And ALL of that is before their own set of rules hit the shelves. 

When someone asks "how fragmented is the D&D fanbase?" my answer would have to be "enough".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

Part of that is that Paizo is also selling to 4e players via their maps and decks. I know I have tons of 'em. 

In addition, Paizo is awesome. They have fantastic name recognition from doing Dragon and Dungeon. They're also an... I don't want to say refuge from 4e, but they're a good rallying point for those who don't like 4e. 

But saying that Paizo, where several members have essentially said, "we don't need to sell as much as WoTC. Just enough to remain viable", indicates to me, that the split COULD still be huge and still "enough" to justify Paizo not only staying around, but growing.

Espeically if they continue to make those awesome books that are useful with any edition of D&D. (Classic Dungeon Monsters revisited can't get here soon enough!)


----------



## Obryn (Jun 19, 2009)

Honestly, I don't think 3pp's would have had an easy time of things for 4e even if the game were as open as 3e.

After the initial glut of products, the market was quickly trashed.  Most third party publishers had already folded by the time 4e was announced, and I don't think 4e had anything to do with their decline....  IMHO, it's 3.5 and the huge distributor issues (what was the name?  Adamant?) that effectively shuttered a large number of the smaller 3pps.  Even the larger ones took a beating, but as a result, individually they each got a bigger share of the market.  I don't remember any new 3pp's becoming big enough to rival them after the 3.5 announcement.

Personally, I think Mongoose, Paizo, and Green Ronin are doing the smart thing.  For RPGs, I don't think you can reliably sustain anything other than a hobby business using someone else's game.  (Goodman is an exception - but their products are remarkably flexible, and they concentrate mainly on solid adventures, rather than crunchier bits like rule-heavy settings and supplements.)  As 3.5 and 4e demonstrated, the rug can literally be pulled out at any time - after all, the parent company needs to make money, too, and no game (other than Palladium) keeps a single edition forever.  I think the OGL and d20 licenses allowed these other companies to get sufficient capital and name recognition that branching out became feasible.

So yeah, I don't blame 4e for 3pps' deaths.  I think that's a pretty radical revision of history.  3pp's were already dying, and those who weren't were already moving on.  From what I can tell, most 3pp's would have likely still produced some materials under a better GSL, but IMHO most would have nevertheless focused on their more reliable and totally-controlled in-house systems.

-O


----------



## ggroy (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Isn't exactly saying much?
> 
> When the quote in question is 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA, it's wrong. And "is saying much". At least in Goodman's case.




It would be more than "saying much", if the present sales figures are equal to or less than the "rock bottom" period.

Starting from "rock bottom" isn't exactly saying much in general, unless the company in question is falling deeper and deeper into its own grave below the previous "rock bottom".


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Eh? Didn't Green Ronin and Mongoose directly state that part of the reason they were doing their own thing away from d20 was so that they wouldn't be shackled to what WoTC did wit hthe D&D game?
> 
> 
> But with few exceptions, nowhere near the volume of previous products.



Agreed.  But it sold *well enough* to maintain a market.  4E is failed to do that.  And 3.5 had angry 3E players going against it.  4E should have hordes of thrilled 4E players in its favor.  

If your comparison held water, 4E 3PP would be doing at least as well as post 3.5 stuff, not far worse, as it is.



> So you agree that still solid isn't the same as selling strong?"



I agree completely that 3.5 hurt 3PPs.  



> Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?



Well, first of all, if you are forced to compare year 1 4E sales to the tail end of 3.5, then you have already lost.

And second of all, I already made the point that Goodman products (quick and easy modules) do, in fact, play directly in stream with 4E and should be popular.  It is other products I specifically called out.



> Agreed. And as Goodman said, they were better than 3.5 sales. And as WoTC seems to prove on numerous occassions, they've hit best seller lists and sold out of multiple items. Now there is no proof either way to indicate superior or worse sales than 3.5 but charting products and selling out is always better than not doing so no?



If WotC products are selling well then it is just that much more damning that these people love 4E and yet won't buy 3PP product for it.

My point is not that people won't play 4E, it is that they won't buy 3PP for it, with the limited exception of modules such as Goodman produces.



> Eh? Which part of the fan base are you talking about here? The part that wants 1e reprinted as POD? The fan base that is already playing 4e? The fan base that will only play official WoTC products?



I'm talking about 4e players and the lack of them buying 3PP stuff.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 19, 2009)

As far as systemless campaigns goes when dealing with WotC the one thing they have to increase their chance of success is the novel tie-in.  They could easily run novels for any setting they chose to work with continuing to drive the interest in the world while letting the players decide how things work in that world by choosing their own mechanics.  Part of what Clark was pointing out and what I was agreeing with is they could do the systemless material with out of print settings such as Dark Sun, Spelljammer, whatever that they don't plan on getting fully detailed with.  Thus selling to old fans who want the material but not the 4e or 3e or whatever edition was originally tied to it.  Then to capitalize on the setting they release their own player's guide to go along with it.  More in line with what they are already doing, but minus the DM portion in the campaign book we already see.

As for the ever green edition of PF it has been stated that subscriptions will definitely get the PDF.  Paizo hasn't decided if they will offer it any other way yet, at least at this time.

Clark: Have you thought about working with other publishers in creating a systemless campaign?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Isn't exactly saying much?
> 
> When the quote in question is 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA, it's wrong. And "is saying much". At least in Goodman's case.



Yes.  Saying that year 1 sales are as good as post cliff dive, nearly a  decade in, 3E sales is not saying much at all.

If your entire argument is married to Goodman despite the fact that I already said that Goodman should sale well before you even responded to me, then you are not saying much either.

Are you claiming that 4E 3PPs are doing well?  Show me the market for non-quick-and-easy-modules in 4E 3PP.  Please.  What is flying off shelves?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I'm talking about 4e players and the lack of them buying 3PP stuff.




But given the lack of publishers for 4e (at least print products cause I honestly know nothing about how the PDF side of things goes), how can that be an accurate statement. That's like putting someone on an abandoned island and then claiming that they won't eat pizza. You can't buy what hasn't been produced.

Edit: And Goodman does more than modules. They've done the Orc sourcebook for GMs and a Dragonborn sourcebook for players. In addition, they have several more such books coming (Eladrin and Tielflings next.)

If Goodman, known for their adventurers, can make it in the supplement market, it seems that well regarded supplements from the previous editions would also be easy sellers.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If WotC products are selling well then it is just that much more damning that these people love 4E and yet won't buy 3PP product for it.
> 
> My point is not that people won't play 4E, it is that they won't buy 3PP for it, with the limited exception of modules such as Goodman produces.



I think you're missing the mark here.  I don't disagree that the 3pp market is very dry - I just think the ball was rolling before 4e was even announced and the GSL issues.

Before the 4e announcement, 3pps weren't producing very much for D&D - again, with the exceptions of Goodman and Paizo.  Certainly, the print market was minimal at best - Necromancer was already declining, looking at their release schedule.  Not much was being sold, either, IIRC, especially if you look at the print market.

Two of biggest 3pp's - Mongoose and Green Ronin - had already branched out, seeing the writing on the wall.  Mongoose was doing about a half-dozen things at once, while GR was very focused on M&M and True20.  Yes, both produced materials for D&D, but I don't know if those paid the bills.

Basically, I think the die was cast before the 4e announcement.  The GSL fiasco just prevented a hoped-for _rebirth_ of an already-dying market.

My two cents...

-O


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> We don't know how split the fanbase is, and the only people that could give us a reasonable estimate (WotC) won't. It ain't 5%, and it ain't 50%, but it lies somewhere inbetween.




I disagree.  It could be above 50%.  And given you were trying to give a range of guesses, I think it would be fair to represent at least the guesses represented here.  In this thread we have seen guesses as high as 80% I believe.  So, 5% to 80% is a more representative range I'd say, with no suggestion that it is some sort of average or anything but just pure guesses.

Personally, I think 80% of people converted to 4e, but that is just my own pure guesswork.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 19, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I disagree.  I absolutely think it could be above 50%, and I think a lot of folks do as well.  And given you were trying to give a range of guesses, I think it would be fair to represent at least the guesses represented here.  In this thread we have seen guesses as high as 80% I believe.  So, 5% to 80% is a more representative range I'd say, with no suggestion that it is some sort of average or anything but just pure guesses.




But what are people buying?

That's the question at the end of the day.

If people are split 50/50, then Paizo is going to become huge. Their print runs are not as large as WoTC. Everything they print should be out of print almost instantly.

I don't think that's true. 

I think that a lot of the systemless stuff goes through multiple printings, like for example, the flip matts and tiles. 

But are the print runs increase with every path? With every adventure? With every sourcebook?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> But given the lack of publishers for 4e (at least print products cause I honestly know nothing about how the PDF side of things goes), how can that be an accurate statement. That's like putting someone on an abandoned island and then claiming that they won't eat pizza. You can't buy what hasn't been produced.



I have heard repeated statements from 3PPs that 4E stuff does not sale.  
Comments in the OP via Clark back that up.
The only reason there is no pizza is the guy didn't buy the first dozen that were offered and now all the pizza shops moved to other places.



> Edit: And Goodman does more than modules. They've done the Orc sourcebook for GMs and a Dragonborn sourcebook for players. In addition, they have several more such books coming (Eladrin and Tielflings next.)
> 
> If Goodman, known for their adventurers, can make it in the supplement market, it seems that well regarded supplements from the previous editions would also be easy sellers.



How did these items sale?



Post 3.5 it was rough but Necromancer could get stuff distributed.
Post 4E, it appears, either he can't or it is at least much more difficult.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think you're missing the mark here.  I don't disagree that the 3pp market is very dry - I just think the ball was rolling before 4e was even announced and the GSL issues.
> 
> Before the 4e announcement, 3pps weren't producing very much for D&D - again, with the exceptions of Goodman and Paizo.  Certainly, the print market was minimal at best - Necromancer was already declining, looking at their release schedule.  Not much was being sold, either, IIRC, especially if you look at the print market.
> 
> ...



Why?

Why are joyous 4E fans not buying the 3PP product that is out there?

If 4E fans were buying Mongoose would sell to them.

You are saying that the market is dead because there is no one interested in offering supply.  If there was a demand, the supply would emerge.  My point is, the demand is not there.  You can not blame companies for not making products that don't sell.  

Both Mongoose and GR have made it clear that they are staying with the lines they see as the best business choice.  Why is M&M a better seller for GR than 4E?  Or, at least, why are they placing their bets that way?

Why doesn't someone else emerge to replace these companies?

My point is that 4E players do not buy (not enough).  If I am wrong, someone will sell to them.  Thing is, I'm not wrong.


----------



## crazy_cat (Jun 19, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> We don't know how split the fanbase is, and the only people that could give us a reasonable estimate (WotC) won't. It ain't 5%, and it ain't 50%, but it lies somewhere inbetween.
> 
> But it's enough to generate a huge ammount of support for the Pathfinder line. Two years after the announcement of 4th ed (and what should have been the deathknell for 3rd ed 3pp), Paizo has grown from 2 magazines to a line of cards, books, adventures, adventure paths, licensed minis and more. They have subscriptions for not only their Adventure Paths (the direct inheritors for the old magazines) but for maps, cards, stand alone adventures and campaign setting materials.
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Why?
> 
> Why are joyous 4E fans not buying the 3PP product that is out there?
> 
> If 4E fans were buying Mongoose would sell to them.



Mongoose tried with ... what was it, a Quintessential book with shady mechanics and a kind of odd and mostly systemless new setting?

The Quintessential product line was already pretty debased by late 3.5, so I'm not too surprised about its lackluster performance.  (Additionally, did they even advertise it?  I didn't hear about it until well after it came out, and I'm on several boards every day.  And when I did hear about it, it was generally along the lines of how bad it was.)  Wraith Recon, from all accounts, had pretty much no mechanics and was pretty lackluster.  Again, not something I'd use as a predictive example.



> You are saying that the market is dead because there is no one interested in offering supply.  If there was a demand, the supply would emerge.  My point is, the demand is not there.  You can not blame companies for not making products that don't sell.



That's ...  not the way it works.  Demand does not create supply, generally.  It can create _opportunities_, but someone has to take those and run with them.

I see no reason why an excellent setting along the lines of Arcana Evolved, with interesting new mechanics and a new flavor, wouldn't sell.  There are a lot of people anxiously awaiting 4e Earthdawn, and a vocal population waiting for a 4e(ish?) Freeport.  You can't blame fans for not buying products that don't exist.



> Both Mongoose and GR have made it clear that they are staying with the lines they see as the best business choice.  Why is M&M a better seller for GR than 4E?  Or, at least, why are they placing their bets that way?



GR and Mongoose have both made it abundantly clear that selling their house system is a much better bet than selling for a system that's not theirs.  Pramas has written pretty eloquently on this, as have folks from Paizo.  Simply put, for a publisher, it's way better to control all aspects of your business.  (See: the 3.5 apocalypse for third-party publishers.)

If a company can afford to do so, it's much safer to become a first-party publisher - or else to make products which can be adapted to new systems quickly and easily.  (Like Goodman did, and like Paizo still does with many system-neutral products.)



> Why doesn't someone else emerge to replace these companies?



Well, for starters, because - like I said - the market itself was shot well before 4e was announced.

Frankly, even for third-party publishers, the market is _way_ different than it used to be.  White Wolf got into the mix early by releasing a monster manual before WotC's own - something that won't happen again.  Green Ronin made a splash by making (IIRC) the first available modules for 3e.  Not so here, either.

The economic situation is far different, too.  Third party materials weren't selling well before 4e was announced, so the distributor network has cold feet regarding them, new edition or no.  There are new demands in the print industry involving rising costs and changes in bookstores.  The quality bar is much higher, now, too - early d20 materials could sell with just a color cover and staples; nowadays fans expect better art and better editing, even from the smallest third parties, increasing production costs.  Fans are more demanding, too - look at the gap in production values from Relics & Rituals to World's Largest Dungeon, Wilderlands, and Ptolus.  And yes, the late GSL hurt a lot, too.

Most of the companies who were still around at the end of 3.5 were either some of the first out of the gate with quality products, or else got a leg up in some other way.  Green Ronin was one of the first.  S&S was up there, too.  Mongoose, as well.  (I have no info on Necromancer - sorry!)  Goodman's products are probably among the least expensive to produce, so they're fine regardless.  Malhavoc had Monte Cook and financial ties to White Wolf, not to mention a well-earned reputation for sound products.  Paizo was the publisher of Dungeon and Dragon - a huge advantage on their competition.  These are generally companies who were able to either build capital early on, or else had a leg up somehow.  They could compete with WotC on quality, and their success showed it.

You can't just look at 2000 and look at now and say, "Well, why the heck isn't this happening again?" because the situation is frankly not even remotely similar - especially for a new company.



> My point is that 4E players do not buy (not enough).  If I am wrong, someone will sell to them.  Thing is, I'm not wrong.



Again, complaining that people aren't buying things that aren't being offered is ... shady.

-O


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> We don't know how split the fanbase is, and the only people that could give us a reasonable estimate (WotC) won't. It ain't 5%, and it ain't 50%, but it lies somewhere inbetween.
> 
> But it's enough to generate a huge ammount of support for the Pathfinder line. Two years after the announcement of 4th ed (and what should have been the deathknell for 3rd ed 3pp), Paizo has grown from 2 magazines to a line of cards, books, adventures, adventure paths, licensed minis and more. They have subscriptions for not only their Adventure Paths (the direct inheritors for the old magazines) but for maps, cards, stand alone adventures and campaign setting materials.
> 
> ...




Any fragmentation of a fanbase can be "enough" if the disenfranchised minority includes you. You being in the disenfranchised side doesn't necessarily pertain to the health of D&D as a whole.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Why?
> 
> Why are joyous 4E fans not buying the 3PP product that is out there?
> 
> If 4E fans were buying Mongoose would sell to them.



My point is that 4E players do not buy (not enough).  If I am wrong, someone will sell to them.  Thing is, I'm not wrong.

Maybe Mongoose isn't selling because the stuff they produced has been mostly horribly broken.




> You are saying that the market is dead because there is no one interested in offering supply.  If there was a demand, the supply would emerge.  My point is, the demand is not there.  You can not blame companies for not making products that don't sell.



I agree, and it could still happen. GG seems to be expanding their repetoire, so maybe... /shrug



> Both Mongoose and GR have made it clear that they are staying with the lines they see as the best business choice.  Why is M&M a better seller for GR than 4E?  Or, at least, why are they placing their bets that way?




As Paizo has stated, there is a certain value to doing your own thing. Also, some might think that it is better to be the top dog/only producer for a small crowd of people than be one small fish amongst many others.



> Why doesn't someone else emerge to replace these companies?



Was GR and NG so big and famous in 2001 already? I must admit that I wasn't paying attention to 3PP stuff at that time, so I do not recall. But 4e is still only 1 year old, lots of things could happen.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 19, 2009)

Also, and this is just my personal opinion of course, but many might share it, the stuff that WotC produces is just head and shoulders above what they produced for 3.x. Sure, there is some debate regarding the forgotten realms campaign stuff, but the rest has been very well received. Dragon is about a 100 times more balanced and useful (the crunch anyway) than before. All in all, maybe there is just less need of 3PP's than before.

Could they improve certain areas? Yes indeed, not everything is perfect. But it's definitely far better than during the last edition, IMO, YMMV, ETC.

Cheers


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Mongoose tried with ... what was it, a Quintessential book with shady mechanics and a kind of odd and mostly systemless new setting?
> 
> The Quintessential product line was already pretty debased by late 3.5, so I'm not too surprised about its lackluster performance.  (Additionally, did they even advertise it?  I didn't hear about it until well after it came out, and I'm on several boards every day.  And when I did hear about it, it was generally along the lines of how bad it was.)  Wraith Recon, from all accounts, had pretty much no mechanics and was pretty lackluster.  Again, not something I'd use as a predictive example.



Ok, so Mongoose tried and failed....  
And there are probably other factors involved in that one failure. 

And yet, they don't try again.  
They expect that everything else they are publishing will sell better 4E stuff?  Why would they think that?

Or they are choosing to sell products that will produce fewer sales?  Why would they do that?




> That's ...  not the way it works.



Actually, it is.



> Demand does not create supply, generally.  It can create _opportunities_, but someone has to take those and run with them.



Of course, and people seeking to sell profitable products go to where demand is.  It isn't like the D&D 3PP field is a secret.  Publishers are aware of it and are choosing to stay away.



> I see no reason why an excellent setting along the lines of Arcana Evolved, with interesting new mechanics and a new flavor, wouldn't sell.  There are a lot of people anxiously awaiting 4e Earthdawn, and a vocal population waiting for a 4e(ish?) Freeport.  You can't blame fans for not buying products that don't exist.



  Define "a lot".  I (again) agree that ENWorld is a good place to come and find 4E fans who want 3PP.  



> GR and Mongoose have both made it abundantly clear that selling their house system is a much better bet than selling for a system that's not theirs.  Pramas has written pretty eloquently on this, as have folks from Paizo.  Simply put, for a publisher, it's way better to control all aspects of your business.  (See: the 3.5 apocalypse for third-party publishers.)
> 
> If a company can afford to do so, it's much safer to become a first-party publisher - or else to make products which can be adapted to new systems quickly and easily.  (Like Goodman did, and like Paizo still does with many system-neutral products.)



If they could make big bucks selling 4E, they would.



> Well, for starters, because - like I said - the market itself was shot well before 4e was announced.



The 3X market was.  The 2E market was shot when 3E was announced.
But the results are very different.  I'm not saying this because 4E doesn't have the boom that 3E had.  That standard isn't even in the picture. 



> The economic situation is far different, too.  Third party materials weren't selling well before 4e was announced, so the distributor network has cold feet regarding them, new edition or no.  There are new demands in the print industry involving rising costs and changes in bookstores.  The quality bar is much higher, now, too - early d20 materials could sell with just a color cover and staples; nowadays fans expect better art and better editing, even from the smallest third parties, increasing production costs.  Fans are more demanding, too - look at the gap in production values from Relics & Rituals to World's Largest Dungeon, Wilderlands, and Ptolus.



Ok, so explain why Clark made his comments about Necromancer's plans.



> And yes, the late GSL hurt a lot, too.



  Agreed.



> Most of the companies who were still around at the end of 3.5 were either some of the first out of the gate with quality products, or else got a leg up in some other way.  Green Ronin was one of the first.  S&S was up there, too.  Mongoose, as well.  (I have no info on Necromancer - sorry!)  Goodman's products are probably among the least expensive to produce, so they're fine regardless.  Malhavoc had Monte Cook and financial ties to White Wolf, not to mention a well-earned reputation for sound products.  Paizo was the publisher of Dungeon and Dragon - a huge advantage on their competition.  These are generally companies who were able to either build capital early on, or else had a leg up somehow.  They could compete with WotC on quality, and their success showed it.
> 
> You can't just look at 2000 and look at now and say, "Well, why the heck isn't this happening again?" because the situation is frankly not even remotely similar - especially for a new company.



Are there enough 4E fans wanting to buy product?
I'm not expecting a re-run of the OGL.  
This is night and day.



> Again, complaining that people aren't buying things that aren't being offered is ... shady.
> 
> -O



There has been product.  There is nothing shady in what I have claimed.


----------



## ST (Jun 19, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Here's the biggest problem with this:  WotC both changes people too much (over time) and seems to have way too many cooks in the kitchen making these decisions.  The people making decisions today may not even be there tomorrow.  Scott may be the perfect champion for what you want, Clark.  But he also may be working somewhere else tomorrow (or win Powerball or something).  If he's the only champion on the business side, forget any hope of Wizards being the inclusive D&D producer.




That's an excellent point. I'd add that corporate structures being what they are, my guess is that the relevant Wizards employee will either:

a) Stay in that position, thus having someone with interest and motivation to do something in the position, but not the organizational clout to actually get it done, or

b) Be moved to another position, whereupon he no longer is able to act on it.

The way you get things done in a large corporation is by getting promoted up the ladder, at which point the things you originally cared about are out of your hands.

The OGL was a heck of a thing but it was a fluke that it ever happened at all. I honestly think expecting "good behavior" out of a corporation is just wishing on a star.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Also, and this is just my personal opinion of course, but many might share it, the stuff that WotC produces is just head and shoulders above what they produced for 3.x. Sure, there is some debate regarding the forgotten realms campaign stuff, but the rest has been very well received. Dragon is about a 100 times more balanced and useful (the crunch anyway) than before. All in all, maybe there is just less need of 3PP's than before.
> 
> Could they improve certain areas? Yes indeed, not everything is perfect. But it's definitely far better than during the last edition, IMO, YMMV, ETC.
> 
> Cheers




I agree, though I feel their modules are weaker in 4e.  I think third parties could really take advantage of that and produce some great adventures.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 19, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I agree, though I feel their modules are weaker in 4e.  I think third parties could really take advantage of that and produce some great adventures.




Overall I've found adventures in general to be weaker in 4e.  I don't know if that is bad luck on the ones I've seen or if there is something about 4e that causes me to not like the adventures.  I like the game just fine.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Maybe Mongoose isn't selling because the stuff they produced has been mostly horribly broken.



That is pretty much why I didn't buy much of their 3E stuff.....





> I agree, and it could still happen. GG seems to be expanding their repetoire, so maybe... /shrug



Also going back into 3E....



> As Paizo has stated, there is a certain value to doing your own thing. Also, some might think that it is better to be the top dog/only producer for a small crowd of people than be one small fish amongst many others.



Yes, I certainly see that point. 
Funny that some many players all see their own stuff as more profitable than 4E.  Or do none of them care about success?

Go re-read the OP.  Why are all those companies along the publishing / distribution path so firmly opposed to selling profitable products?



> Was GR and NG so big and famous in 2001 already? I must admit that I wasn't paying attention to 3PP stuff at that time, so I do not recall. But 4e is still only 1 year old, lots of things could happen.



Necro had a module out at Gencon when 3E was released and had Creature Collection out BEFORE the Monster Manual.

Yes, lots of things could still happen.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Ok, so Mongoose tried and failed....
> And there are probably other factors involved in that one failure.
> 
> And yet, they don't try again.
> ...



They are focusing on their core product lines which they completely control - they've been moving in this direction since before 3.5, which is one of the reasons they survived that bust so well.



> Actually, it is.
> 
> Of course, and people seeking to sell profitable products go to where demand is.  It isn't like the D&D 3PP field is a secret.  Publishers are aware of it and are choosing to stay away.
> 
> ...



You are acting like this is magic.  It's not.  Someone has to produce these books - and most of the big players are pretty committed to their own stuff right now, without unlimited resources to branch out.



> Ok, so explain why Clark made his comments about Necromancer's plans.



....I think that's more or less exactly what he was saying, by and large.

Clark was one of the big players at the apex of d20's third-party quality boom.  He's got the resources, the connections, and the desire.  Hopefully he'll make a good product and it will sell, but the problems he was citing are hardly endemic to 4e sales in particular.



> There has been product.  There is nothing shady in what I have claimed.



Using the unadvertised, unproofread, un-buzzed Quintessential Wizard as a case in point is not exactly above-board. 

And Wraith Recon is not an example of a quality, compelling setting.

If there are no high-quality, comparable products, what examples could you possibly be using? 

When Earthdawn is released (and if it's a good product), we can talk.

-O


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Also, and this is just my personal opinion of course, but many might share it, the stuff that WotC produces is just head and shoulders above what they produced for 3.x. Sure, there is some debate regarding the forgotten realms campaign stuff, but the rest has been very well received. Dragon is about a 100 times more balanced and useful (the crunch anyway) than before. All in all, maybe there is just less need of 3PP's than before.
> 
> Could they improve certain areas? Yes indeed, not everything is perfect. But it's definitely far better than during the last edition, IMO, YMMV, ETC.
> 
> Cheers



I am assuming you are specifically talking about supplemental stuff.

I can't comment on 4E quality, I stopped after the core.  

But, there were easily 5 or 6 3PPs that I considered superior to WotC for new content back during 3X.  So it is easy for me to imagine that you are correct.

That said, I know a lot of people (I get to use "a lot" also    ) who bought more product per month that WotC can put out.  I bought almost everything they published AND still bought stacks of 3PP.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Funny that some many players all see their own stuff as more profitable than 4E.  Or do none of them care about success?



er... this shift happened before 4e.

It was a good idea after the release of 3.5, too.

-O


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Necro had a module out at Gencon when 3E was released and had Creature Collection out BEFORE the Monster Manual.





Not to nit-pick, but I don't think Necromancer Games did either of these. The module was Green Ronin's Death in Freeport, and the Creature Collection was Sword & Sorcery Studios/White Wolf.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> er... this shift happened before 4e.
> 
> It was a good idea after the release of 3.5, too.
> 
> -O



And 4E had zero impact on undoing it.

Of course a nearly decade old product had lost its appeal.

And right after 3.5 was bad.  But it was still very good compared to now.  Go back and read the OP.  Did Necro run into that after 3.5?  

WotCs 3E product sales were down as well late in the game.  4E was a re-boot.  Now a re-boot does not mean a repeat.  But it is a fresh start.  

Even with the "new and improved" GSL, it isn't a question of repeating 3X, it is a question of showing a pulse.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> er... this shift happened before 4e.
> 
> It was a good idea after the release of 3.5, too.
> 
> -O




This

The main successes in 3PP during the second half of 3rd Edition's timeframe came from 3PPs releasing non-D&D systems using the OGL. True20, M&M, Iron Heroes, Retro-Clones, ect.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 19, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Not to nit-pick, but I don't think Necromancer Games did either of these. The module was Green Ronin's Death in Freeport, and the Creature Collection was Sword & Sorcery Studios/White Wolf.




By all means nit-pick.  
You are right about Death in Freeport.

But didn't Clark have Wizard's Amulet at the same time?  And Creature Collection was Clark, but you are right he did that through S&S.  Necromancer must have come later.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 19, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Personally, I think 80% of people converted to 4e, but that is just my own pure guesswork.




Take this for what it is worth which ain't much:  While listening to many podcasts this past year from publishers and fans of all sorts of games I was surprised by how many of them when talking about what they were personally playing said 4e D&D.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 19, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Not to nit-pick, but I don't think Necromancer Games did either of these. The module was Green Ronin's Death in Freeport, and the Creature Collection was Sword & Sorcery Studios/White Wolf.




Correct - although the Creature Collection was Clark Peterson's baby (via White Wolf).

Although, the free Necromancer .pdf adventure - Wizard's Amulet - was, IIRC, out at Gen Con too...


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 19, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Correct - although the Creature Collection was Clark Peterson's baby (via White Wolf).
> 
> Although, the free Necromancer .pdf adventure - Wizard's Amulet - was, IIRC, out at Gen Con too...





Having never (yet) been to Gen Con, I had forgotten that The Wizard's Amulet was there in print and not just as a free PDF afterwards. Likewise I had forgotten Clark's name on the CC. I was under the impression (recollection?) that they were user/fan submitted critters, like the spells and items in R&R.

That's what I get for getting older!


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jun 19, 2009)

Wow this thread grew today.



carmachu said:


> Maybe, but there are more things likely to get cut back then the book, which gives you the most bang for your buck instead of say....a movie or eating out.



For some and for others no. Especially for people with families. Most of them I know RPG is the first budget cut, because movies and dinner is family events and RPG tends to just be one or sometimes both parents.



> Which means, ultimately, Necro was irrelevant to the general market for what, a year before 4e?



Not exactly since 4e was announced almost a year before it came out. the last necro product if I recall was earlier the same year when we learned 4e was coming out.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 19, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Overall I've found adventures in general to be weaker in 4e.  I don't know if that is bad luck on the ones I've seen or if there is something about 4e that causes me to not like the adventures.  I like the game just fine.




So far, Burning Sky is great.  But, I am a player in that, so I have not seen much of it yet.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 19, 2009)

I think people on ENWorld tend to overestimate the importance of 3pp, since this is the de facto home forum of fans of 3pp/OGL. I spend time at WotC and RPGnet, and remember my posting days at WotC prior to 4E's announcement. The "chatter" regarding 3pp/OGL on other sites is much less than it is here.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jun 19, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Agreed. There were many 3PP that kept me in the D&D fold rather than going elsewher in the gaming world. I know I cant be alone there.




Your not but the real question is how many of us are there? No one knows for sure and we can all throw around numbers from our personal experiences but the problems with that is. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.

Which is true, most of the gamers i knew the most where the ones that was big into 3pp stuff and they tend to be the group that least liked 4e.

But not to start a edition war. Anyways 3e brought me back to DnD but 3pp products keep me playing it, with out them honestly i would have went back to other games long ago like I did with 2e.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 19, 2009)

Orcus said:


> How about finding a unifying thread of that game? How about a system-neutral world that has run through every edition of D&D prior to now (nudge nudge, a Greyhawk revival that is a setting only, not system specific; how rad would that be, nudge nudge)? Sometimes I wonder if Wizards has learned the lessons of the history of this hobby.
> 
> Clark




I've already got the statless 1980 Greyhawk folio that is very points of light and I had the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer whose only stats were deity domains for 3e (though unfortunately I lent it out and never got it back).

I'm guessing you are thinking of a mix of the statless nature of the Pirate's Guide and the style and depth level of the FR Campaign Guide.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 19, 2009)

I'd love to see Clark and company make their own Necromancer RPG, then support it with modules.  I'd be on board with that in a big way.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 19, 2009)

FunkBGR said:


> Erik and James have popped on the forums explaining how they can't sell in big box stores because they're on a different scale of economy.




Not sure if James has chimed in on this, yet (I'm still digging through the thread), but I don't believe I've ever said that we _can't_ sell at big box stores (I assume here you're mostly talking about Barnes & Noble and the like).

Getting in those places is VERY difficult, but is is possible. We publish a lot of "small stuff" with tiny or even no spines, which makes stores like B&N reluctant to heavily stock our books. That said, the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting has gotten wonderful penetration into Barnes & Noble, and I expect the hardcover Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook and Bestiary to get significant play in bookstores as well.

Companies smaller than Paizo will likely get into B&N ONLY if they are distributed into the book trade by a professional distributor (really either DBD or PSI at this point), and even then it is far from a sure thing.

WotC, having decades of bookstore inertia from their own efforts, the efforts of _their_ distributors, the legacy of TSR's brands, and the piles and piles of corporate money they have thanks to publishing numerous very successful brands, doesn't face the same challenges smaller companies do when it comes to mass market penetration.*

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC

* I'm sure Scott Rouse could tell you horror stories about mass market accounts that we little guys can't even imagine, though, so it's not all wine and roses on either side of the industry.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 19, 2009)

Dark Mistress said:


> Not exactly since 4e was announced almost a year before it came out. the last necro product if I recall was earlier the same year when we learned 4e was coming out.





The last Necro product was City of Brass, released at Gen Con 2007 - the same time 4E was announced.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jun 20, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> The last Necro product was City of Brass, released at Gen Con 2007 - the same time 4E was announced.




Ok thanks, i wasn't sure I knew CoB was the last product and the same year, but wasn't sure when it was.

So been less than 2 years with no products and they only stopped cause of the 4e annoucement. Good to know. Maybe this time i won't forget it.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This
> 
> The main successes in 3PP during the second half of 3rd Edition's timeframe came from 3PPs releasing non-D&D systems using the OGL. True20, M&M, Iron Heroes, Retro-Clones, ect.



That is probably true.  

But support for 3.5 D&D was also still viable, there is no evidence of that being true for 4E now.  And there is evidence to the contrary.

And besides, the market was flooded at that point for 3E.  It is a whole need field ready to be plowed in 4E.  

And that is the bottom line.  There is plenty of reason to believe that there is a clear lack of adequate demand for 3PP market under 1 year old 4E.    We can argue about why, but the people who make a living at it all appear to agree on that.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Basically, I think the die was cast before the 4e announcement.  The GSL fiasco just prevented a hoped-for _rebirth_ of an already-dying market.




I agree with that. Sales in the waning days of 3.5 were not good at all.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

This is what Necromancer should do:


Take the 4E system, and fluff it out Necromancer style. Take races, classes, monsters and fluff them out 1E/3E style, and include the new 4E arrivals. Give the new 4E arrivals a place in the old school fluff. Expand the Points of Light with more specifics, using Necromancer's old school feel. Make it similar to a campaign setting, but focus on fluffing out all the facets of 4E available in the GSL Necromancer style as opposed to focusing on the setting itself. 

Think of the fluff in the 1E/2E core books. The fluff in the complete 2E handbooks. Fluff as an interesting read for its own sake. 

One thing that WotC with 4E is noticably going short on is fluff. Some people have been asking for it. If you want some low hanging fruit, Necromancer or other 3pp, this is it. Not fluff on medieval equipment or mounts or fringe things, detailed fluff on the core details of the game. I point this at Necromancer, as from what I've seen/heard this is the sort of thing I could see from them.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If 4E fans were buying Mongoose would sell to them.




Truer words were never spoken (or typed and posted on the inter-web thingy). 

Though, in fairness, the problem isnt necessarily 4E gamers and product buyers. The issue is distributors.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 20, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> The last Necro product was City of Brass, released at Gen Con 2007 - the same time 4E was announced.




Jeez, Dave, dont rub it in 

Clark


----------



## Obryn (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But support for 3.5 D&D was also still viable, there is no evidence of that being true for 4E now.  And there is evidence to the contrary.



Such as?  I'm still puzzled how you're using the fact that few people are producing high-quality third-party products as evidence that few people _want_ high-quality third-party products.

I'll agree that nobody wants _crappy_ third-party products.  I'd also say the market tolerance for crappy third-party products is much, much lower than it was in early 3e.

Really, show me an Arcana Evolved or a Wilderlands or a WLD for 4e and we can talk about evidence.  Right now, what you have is _conjecture_.

-O


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

edit delete


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Why is M&M a better seller for GR than 4E?  Or, at least, why are they placing their bets that way?



Chris has pretty much stated that the nail in the coffin for GR doing 4E was that the license could be yanked at any time.  He is not going to build on a business model that counts on WotC's own business decisions.

The OGL couldn't be yanked, so a game line that is very successful based on the OGL can't be forced off the market.  A game line based on the GSL can.  I think no major RPG company can afford to put too many apples in that cart.


Mistwell said:


> I agree, though I feel their modules are weaker in 4e.  I think third parties could really take advantage of that and produce some great adventures.



I agree.  I haven't seen or heard about any great adventures for 4E (except somewhat for a couple of the WotC ones that are headed in that direction).  

Goodman has a decent line of adventures, but none really seem to be "great."  The ones I have seen seem OK, and I haven't heard of any of their others getting a strong response.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You are saying that the market is dead because there is no one interested in offering supply.  If there was a demand, the supply would emerge.  My point is, the demand is not there.  You can not blame companies for not making products that don't sell.




Well, yeah, if you want to get all *capitalistic *about it.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 20, 2009)

Gygax Games has only agreed to publish Gary's Lejendary Adventures line with Mongoose Games--and things have been delayed due to internal things that need to be resolved, as Gail has stated.  Castle Zagyg--which is what I assume you're referring to--it's publisher, form, fate, etc., AFAIK has yet to be decided upon.

So I'm not sure how this discussion about D&D and GSL/OGL stuff relates to that.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Gygax Games has only agreed to publish Gary's Lejendary Adventures line with Mongoose Games--and things have been delayed due to internal things that need to be resolved, as Gail has stated.  Castle Zagyg--which is what I assume you're referring to--it's publisher, form, fate, etc., AFAIK has yet to be decided upon.
> 
> So I'm not sure how this discussion about D&D and GSL/OGL stuff relates to that.





just stream of consciousness as i just wiped pizza grease off the zagyg boxed set book 1 i am reading as i read these boards...

you're right tho, dont want to derail the thread so i'll go back and delete it...


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This is what Necromancer should do:




Clark is a successful professional, and has a lot of experience in the RPG field these past ten years. If he could make it work from a business standpoint, he would give it a try (as stated in the OP). D&D is something he feels very strongly about, and I think it pains him greatly that he can't do for 4E what he did for 3E (for the many and good reasons stated by him and others in this thread). Telling him what to do with his company strikes me as a little pushy.



> _Take the 4E system, and fluff it out..._




On the other hand, it sounds like you have some very clear ideas on a product you'd like to see. I recommend you go for it! Start writing, start your own company. As a regular joe posting on a message board, you're not that much different than Clark was ten years ago; a few ideas, a big burning passion, and a mechanism (OGL for him, GSL for you) to present those ideas to an audience larger than your own gaming group. Sounds like you have those things, yourself. I say go for it, and may you learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before you.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 20, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> On the other hand, it sounds like you have some very clear ideas on a product you'd like to see. I recommend you go for it! Start writing, start your own company. As a regular joe posting on a message board, you're not that much different than Clark was ten years ago; a few ideas, a big burning passion, and a mechanism (OGL for him, GSL for you) to present those ideas to an audience larger than your own gaming group. Sounds like you have those things, yourself. I say go for it, and may you learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before you.




That is a great point, but Clark also had a secret weapon: Bill Webb.  

Together...they are scary good.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Though wishful thinking on my part, it would be great if the Pathfinder core book becomes an "evergreen" title.
> 
> None of the "big box" bookstores nearby have much of an rpg secton beyond WotC products, other than some old Everquest rpg books still on the shelves that nobody seems to pay attention to.




Have to jump back and finish reading this thread but all major named stores do stock it. Now your outlet may not have it on a shelf but you better believe it is i the warehouse. I was informed by books a million that pathfinder 20 was sold out and not sure when they could get more in.

The store was not sold out the warehouse was. GOOd thing is i my area most of the D&D shelf space now has other games in it from pathfinder to Wod but the D&D shelf is a 4th of the size it was 2 years back so now people see other games to, always a good thing. Not that BAm has a large section 3 shelves is all

Now If I recall about paizo and getting into big boxed stores it was over mags not books. When they lost the mags any people kept asking for another mag. An james  I think it was stated that it was hard to get big box stores to even listen as Paizo was a small company with a nitch product with an unknown name

Edit: Erik seems to have weighed in...carry on


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 20, 2009)

rounser said:


> Why? Didn't 3rd party stuff glut the market and the lack of quality control from some 3PPs damage the brand?  Orcus even implies that there's not much appetite for it from distributors and retailers.  In light of that, maybe the GSL is working as intended i.e. WOTC not forfeiting control over the latest edition under the D&D brand.




This. 

Everything that has transpired has done so according to WOTC's desire.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> On the other hand, it sounds like you have some very clear ideas on a product you'd like to see. I recommend you go for it! Start writing, start your own company. As a regular joe posting on a message board, you're not that much different than Clark was ten years ago; a few ideas, a big burning passion, and a mechanism (OGL for him, GSL for you) to present those ideas to an audience larger than your own gaming group. Sounds like you have those things, yourself. I say go for it, and may you learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before you.




I'm not a writer. Its not that I can't or that I'm bad at it, its that I don't write. If you're a writer, you will write whether you get paid for it or not. I have to bludgeon myself to get anything written down that isn't a snap response on a message board.


----------



## aboyd (Jun 20, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I don't think there is anybody, including anybody from WotC, who would try to argue that they didn't seriously drop the ball when it comes to the GSL.
> 
> But not everyone tends to be meanspirited about it.



Actually, I prefer carmachu's bluntness.  I don't think people need to be evenhanded or even courteous to business entities.

Having said that, here is my maybe mean spirited comment (which I don't intend to be mean spirited so much as just stating what I believe to be the truth).  That is, I do not agree with your statement that even WotC would say that they dropped the ball with the GSL.  Maybe Scott would agree.  But I believe that at the higher levels of the company, the GSL has worked _exactly as they intended._  I believe they are currently delighted with the state of things -- they've killed a bunch of the smaller competitors yapping at their heels.  Yay.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

aboyd said:


> Actually, I prefer carmachu's bluntness.  I don't think people need to be evenhanded or even courteous to business entities.
> 
> Having said that, here is my maybe mean spirited comment (which I don't intend to be mean spirited so much as just stating what I believe to be the truth).  That is, I do not agree with your statement that even WotC would say that they dropped the ball with the GSL.  Maybe Scott would agree.  But I believe that at the higher levels of the company, the GSL has worked _exactly as they intended._  I believe they are currently delighted with the state of things -- they've killed a bunch of the smaller competitors yapping at their heels.  Yay.




Agreed---with the other prong of the attack coming from the proprietary DDI that no one can add non-WOTC stuff to.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Agreed---with the other prong of the attack coming from the proprietary DDI that no one can add non-WOTC stuff to.




In the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if some hacker types found a way to circumvent DDI and add all kinds of non-WotC stuff.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

ggroy said:


> In the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if some hacker types found a way to circumvent DDI and add all kinds of non-WotC stuff.





Agreed. I would not put down the ideal of a hacked DDI like program or at the very lest a character builder hack.  Some may be floating around. Once ya throw the gauntlet down your just begging someone to hack it. And they will just say they can say "Look I post this first!" Heck the last starwars book was in PDF form and on file shareing within 12 hours of hitting the street.

Not endorsing this or anything it's just the way it is


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Agreed---with the other prong of the attack coming from the proprietary DDI that no one can add non-WOTC stuff to.





Also agreed. The first GSL did NOT fail. It worked just as it was meant to work. It drove people away from 3PP and kept 3PP out of Wotc's pond.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

ggroy said:


> In the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if some hacker types found a way to circumvent DDI and add all kinds of non-WotC stuff.




That would be not only hilarious, but sweet sweet karma.   

You gotta figure, a hacker/programmer type could probably reverse engineer the thing in about 1/10 the time it took WOTC to develop it in the first place, right?  Once it hits the torrents, that prong of the 3pp assault is dead.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> That would be not only hilarious, but sweet sweet karma.
> 
> You gotta figure, a hacker/programmer type could probably reverse engineer the thing in about 1/10 the time it took WOTC to develop it in the first place, right?  Once it hits the torrents, that prong of the 3pp assault is dead.




how would that work...I have to download a illigal copy of the builder, then eaither the company must support said illegal program (good luck), or I have to wait for others to fill it in...

I doubt we will see this ever...inless I missed something


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 20, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> how would that work...I have to download a illigal copy of the builder, then eaither the company must support said illegal program (good luck), or I have to wait for others to fill it in...
> 
> I doubt we will see this ever...inless I missed something




I'm sure there are ways around the verification. If windows XP hacks can happily download all the latest updates and pass the verification tests with flying colors despite being wholly pirated, the DDI material couldn't be all that difficult (IANAP/I am not a programmer).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

And now, the anti-WotC sentiment starts getting silly


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

Umm we have not been anti-Wotc just ya know talking about stuff


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Umm we have not been anti-Wotc just ya know talking about stuff




Cheering on hacking the Character builder, among other things?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Cheering on hacking the Character builder, among other things?





Well we or at lest I was not cheering it on but talking about if it could be done. I know they builder is done on fileshareing, kinda hard to miss really. Then we moved into if it really could be done. As was poited out if ya can hack microsoft ya can hack Wotc.

Which is really a derail of the thread, so we should drop it. Sorry


----------



## Orcus (Jun 20, 2009)

aboyd said:


> But I believe that at the higher levels of the company, the GSL has worked _exactly as they intended._  I believe they are currently delighted with the state of things -- they've killed a bunch of the smaller competitors yapping at their heels.  Yay.





I'm sure there are some that feel that way. There were some who felt that way when Ryan was championing the OGL too. But Wizards isnt one voice with one intent. So you cant really cast Scott as a lone voice against one monolithic other view. The GSL is proof of this problem--the GSL was a horse by committee. There were too many masters and too many different voices. Thats why the first GSL was a jumbled mess that tried to do a bunch of things yet acomplished NONE of them. The GSL tried to serve too many masters (and I'm sure one was the "get rid of 3P" voice). 

But its a mistake to ascribe a singular intent to Wizards. That is where the "Wizards wants to kill 3Ps" argument fails--because they simply dont have a singular voice or vision. That is one of the problems. They cant figure out their overall view on 3Ps. 

If there is an overall view, it is arrogant indifference and a belief that they are the only one that matters. And THAT has proved to be a huge mistake. 

I think they are waking up and considering that hey wait a minute, maybe they shouldnt make the exact same mistakes TSR made by thinking they are the market and everyone follows them and does whatever they want (yes, to some extent its true, but you cant simply ignore the market). I think there are some people coming around to see they handled this badly and are getting past the "we're Wizards, we dont care about you" arrogance. Problem is, now the market stinks and the economy is an issue and everyone is really risk averse. No one want to put their balls on the line and change course. 

Its gonna be interesting.

Clark


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I'm sure there are some that feel that way. There were some who felt that way when Ryan was championing the OGL too. But Wizards isnt one voice with one intent. So you cant really cast Scott as a lone voice against one monolithic other view. The GSL is proof of this problem--the GSL was a horse by committee. There were too many masters and too many different voices. Thats why the first GSL was a jumbled mess that tried to do a bunch of things yet acomplished NONE of them. The GSL tried to serve too many masters (and I'm sure one was the "get rid of 3P" voice).
> 
> But its a mistake to ascribe a singular intent to Wizards. That is where the "Wizards wants to kill 3Ps" argument fails--because they simply dont have a singular voice or vision. That is one of the problems. They cant figure out their overall view on 3Ps.
> 
> ...




I don't think there is that much of a parallel. WotCs arrogant indifference does not equate to TSR's open aggression and hostility. I know some wounds don't entirely heal, and people who were invested in the OGL have been let down, but honestly this isn't the same ballpark.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 20, 2009)

aboyd said:


> I believe that at the higher levels of the company, the GSL has worked _exactly as they intended._  I believe they are currently delighted with the state of things -- they've killed a bunch of the smaller competitors yapping at their heels.  Yay.




If indeed WotC is threatened by the amount of sales generated by all other d20 3pp in aggregate, then they are in serious trouble. 

As in, "I'm going to eat these scraps of gristle myself because if I give them to the dog, I will starve," kind of trouble.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2009)

So we're clear, discussion of the character builder doesn't belong in this thread.

Thanks.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I think they are waking up and considering that hey wait a minute, maybe they shouldnt make the exact same mistakes TSR made by thinking they are the market and everyone follows them and does whatever they want (yes, to some extent its true, but you cant simply ignore the market). I think there are some people coming around to see they handled this badly and are getting past the "we're Wizards, we dont care about you" arrogance. Problem is, now the market stinks and the economy is an issue and everyone is really risk averse. No one want to put their balls on the line and change course.
> 
> Its gonna be interesting.
> 
> Clark




In the economy and thus in business there are no perfect or ideal solutions. Each decision or choice has a price to pay. Always. Wotc's actions may seem to have caused some harm but the fact is that they were worse first place. Or could have been worse. Regarding 3pp the problem in the end seems to be that 4e is a strictly focused and balanced game and mechanically demanding. This means that is not so much 3pp friendly as 3e was: this is valid for both the developers and the clients who now seem to pay more attention to dedicated material -biggest success example the character builder. Regarding 4e, Wotc is going strong. There is not the room or space for 3pp as there was for 3.xe.

This "4e" effect to the fan base could shape an attitude very different than the 3.x one which was one system for all. And this is a very good thing for who likes tabletop rpgs.


----------



## Reigan (Jun 20, 2009)

Speaking purely as a consumer (hope this helps):

I buy my WotC D&D books from Amazon, they are heavily discounted & the p&p is free. The hardbacks have been of consistent high quality and I have a pretty good idea what I'm getting when I buy them. In other words, value for money.

If I want to buy a 3pp product I have to mail order it from a specialist games supplier, at full price & with a hefty p&p (usually 10%) on top. I am also less clear on what I would be getting, it might be great, then again it might suck. Its a gamble and I only have a limited budget.

Its also a lot easier to create your own stuff with 4e than it was before, in fact with 3e I felt overwhelmed by the amount of choice.

As a player I just don't feel the need for more stuff, I'm in control of my game. The WotC books are fairly balanced and not full of uneeded fluff (I don't need to know what goliaths eat for breakfast).

As a dm I would like more monsters, I would be really open to themed monster books (like Open Grave), I want to run an urban themed campaign, so lots of humanoid rogue types would be nice. I also miss the very detailed campaign settings, I really liked Scarred Lands (which did the Gods/Primordal thing much better than PoL).

I hope the 3pps do find a new new market niche to exploit and find a way around the distributers, maybe reach the fans direct somehow. Good luck with your market research.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 20, 2009)

Just to nip in real quick - on the note of Wizards' products just being overall better then 3rd party ones...you don't know many psionics fans, do you?


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Why?
> 
> Why are joyous 4E fans not buying the 3PP product that is out there?
> 
> If 4E fans were buying Mongoose would sell to them.




I'm starting to see a pattern....granted take it with salt, but it seems like 4e fans are more likely to want the official items, where as those that stayed behind are much more likely to buy and use the 3rd party products....


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

Dark Mistress said:


> Your not but the real question is how many of us are there? No one knows for sure and we can all throw around numbers from our personal experiences but the problems with that is. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.
> 
> Which is true, most of the gamers i knew the most where the ones that was big into 3pp stuff and they tend to be the group that least liked 4e.
> 
> But not to start a edition war. Anyways 3e brought me back to DnD but 3pp products keep me playing it, with out them honestly i would have went back to other games long ago like I did with 2e.



Oh definately. I do not want to go back to edition war. Thats not the point.

3rd brought me back too, after teh burn out of 2nd. The 3rd party proucts kept me around. We've been playing Ptolus for actually 2 years now and no end in sight...

But keep in mind, while no there are no numbers to show that 3rd party products kept alot of folks around, it cuts both ways. One cant say that 3rd party products didnt keep folks around either.

Yeah the folks I play and hang with are all the same cut. One guy has been playing 4e, but the other 6, including myself, have no interest in 4e. The one who did is about to give up on it, as in comparison to the current Ptolus game, the 4e game doesnt even come close to being as good. *shrug*


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 20, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> So we're clear, discussion of the character builder doesn't belong in this thread.
> 
> Thanks.



Why not? It's clearly an important factor and one which isn't discussed enough in relation to 3pp of 4e. It's a lot more interesting and noteworthy than hearing the same old spiel about the terribly fractured playbase and how everyone's anecdotel evidence supports the triumph of their preferred edition.

While I sympathize - and clearly my anecdotal evidence is WAY better than those other peoples', nyah! - please read the rules. If you have a question about moderator actions, we ask that you PM or email them (email addresses are available in a sticky thread in the Meta forum.) Never bring it up in-thread.

Someone can feel free to start a thread about Character Builder and 3PP integration issues, incidentally. 

~ Piratecat


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Also agreed. The first GSL did NOT fail. It worked just as it was meant to work. It drove people away from 3PP and kept 3PP out of Wotc's pond.





One could argue it didnt work quite as they intended. If the intention was to keep folks buying "in house" ie---Wotc 4e, it also drove people further into the hands of their favorite 3PP.....

But did keep a good chunk of the betetr 3pp out of the 4e waters.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

Orcus said:


> But its a mistake to ascribe a singular intent to Wizards. That is where the "Wizards wants to kill 3Ps" argument fails--because they simply dont have a singular voice or vision. That is one of the problems. They cant figure out their overall view on 3Ps.
> 
> I think they are waking up and considering that hey wait a minute, maybe they shouldnt make the exact same mistakes TSR made by thinking they are the market and everyone follows them and does whatever they want (yes, to some extent its true, but you cant simply ignore the market). I think there are some people coming around to see they handled this badly and are getting past the "we're Wizards, we dont care about you" arrogance. Problem is, now the market stinks and the economy is an issue and everyone is really risk averse. No one want to put their balls on the line and change course.




The problem is sir, that one only has to look at their actions and the  results. Maybe it wasnt intential, maybe it was. But they cut the staff working on the GSL, delayed it for a while with the revisions and arent exactly jumping up and down to fix the situations.

Scott is a great person from your words, and a couple of others probably as well. But a handful of people,speaking on the openess of the OGL or a more open GSL doesnt quite cancel out WotC's actually actions. 

Actions have always spoke louder than words. I still dont see Wotc/Wizards/Hasbro changing here. But thats just me.

To be honest, you still seem like your cheerleading with rosecolored glasses, rather than looking a bit more objectively. But thats just me.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2009)

Carmachu, for what it's worth I'll echo Orcus on that count. My experience hasn't shown me that WotC has a clear vision about third party publishers, and when that gets muddled then the more risk adverse parts of the company start muddying it up for the people who _do_ have a clear vision but not the ultimate authority to impose it. Based on what I've seen, I'll include Scott Rouse and his team in that second part.

I think that's one of the reasons that Adkison/Dancey's WotC was so effective; the man in charge had a clear vision and mandate that was communicated well and carried out at all levels. Without Greg Leeds himself pushing it, I don't think that could be easily replicated today.


----------



## Wicht (Jun 20, 2009)

carmachu said:


> I'm starting to see a pattern....granted take it with salt, but it seems like 4e fans are more likely to want the official items, where as those that stayed behind are much more likely to buy and use the 3rd party products....




Heh.  I made that same observation on these boards a year ago or more when some 4e folks were suggesting Paizo would make more money selling 4e items because the 4e market was 'obviously' bigger.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Carmachu, for what it's worth I'll echo Orcus on that count. My experience hasn't shown me that WotC has a clear vision about third party publishers, and when that gets muddled then the more risk adverse parts of the company start muddying it up for the people who _do_ have a clear vision but not the ultimate authority to impose it. Based on what I've seen, I'll include Scott Rouse and his team in that second part.




I dont know what their vision is. But what I do know is what has happened- GSL fiasco, and whats not happening in major 3PP support. Ultimately their actions speak-whether its the authority doesnt want them along, or that their unsure how they want them along, in the end its still the same results.


----------



## Qwillion (Jun 20, 2009)

Necromancer Games had a hell of a sweet spot for with the S&S brand,  any company would have wanted that type of positioning, I am sure they struggled to regain that kind of distribution as a print publisher (examples of Kenzerco and Paizo partnerships come to mind) Now they will have to recreate themselves as a pdf and PoD publisher. 

I hope that Necromancer Games has tremendous success.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jun 20, 2009)

Qwillion said:


> Necromancer Games had a hell of a sweet spot for with the S&S brand,  any company would have wanted that type of positioning, I am sure they struggled to regain that kind of distribution as a print publisher (examples of Kenzerco and Paizo partnerships come to mind) Now they will have to recreate themselves as a pdf and PoD publisher.
> 
> I hope that Necromancer Games has tremendous success.




Well a while back Necro was in talks with Paizo about partnering with them for publishing. I don't know if it happened for sure or not but i wouldn't be surprised if it did.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

carmachu said:


> I dont know what their vision is. But what I do know is what has happened- GSL fiasco, and whats not happening in major 3PP support. Ultimately their actions speak-whether its the authority doesnt want them along, or that their unsure how they want them along, in the end its still the same results.




Again, I think the ENWorld community tends to overestimate the importance of 3PP. If 3PP are only a blip on the screen to WotC, can the GSL really be called a fiasco? Sure its a fiasco to OGL/3PP fans, but is it a fiasco to the larger D&D community or WotC/D&D itself? 

I think things get muddled because of people's personal stake in things, and the fact that ENWorld seems to have a larger percentage of OGL/3PP fans than is the norm.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Again, I think the ENWorld community tends to overestimate the importance of 3PP. If 3PP are only a blip on the screen to WotC, can the GSL really be called a fiasco? Sure its a fiasco to OGL/3PP fans, but is it a fiasco to the larger D&D community or WotC/D&D itself?




It helped frangment the community more than any other time. With hard feelings and hard lines.....which have finallly cooled more than a bit. I wouldnt exactly call it a blip. 

Support wasnt right out of the gate, so I would say so, fiasco.



> I think things get muddled because of people's personal stake in things, and the fact that ENWorld seems to have a larger percentage of OGL/3PP fans than is the norm.




Well one could also argue enworld has the more vocal members of the gaming community in total, no matter which side of the fence your on.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> and the fact that ENWorld seems to have a larger percentage of OGL/3PP fans than is the norm.



I believe you are absolutely right on that.

I believe there is a very high correlation between players who want more and more options and players who will get involved in online discussions of their hobby.

Most of the fan base is more casual.  And most of them never even read a single post here.

Also, there are three tiers here (using a broad brush of course).
There are players who never come here, lurkers, and posters.   The posters are going to be the most intensely involved of the three.  And since they are the only ones posting, their opinions will be very over-stated.

(And yes, lots of exceptions, but that is the over-arching pattern)


----------



## Primal (Jun 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Also, and this is just my personal opinion of course, but many might share it, the stuff that WotC produces is just head and shoulders above what they produced for 3.x. Sure, there is some debate regarding the forgotten realms campaign stuff, but the rest has been very well received. Dragon is about a 100 times more balanced and useful (the crunch anyway) than before. All in all, maybe there is just less need of 3PP's than before.
> 
> Could they improve certain areas? Yes indeed, not everything is perfect. But it's definitely far better than during the last edition, IMO, YMMV, ETC.
> 
> Cheers




Well, I don't actually own any modules, or subscribe to DDI, but based on what I *HAVE* read (KotS, FR books) and seen on the WoTC site (excerpts from several modules plus map galleries), my own opinion is that when it comes to adventures, there is *very* little quality control at WoTC these days. In fact, most of those modules are based on the premise that exciting combats (especially with "interesting" use of terrain) = fun. No regard to good backstories or logical motivations for villains, and the maps (these days, apparently, consisting mostly of utilizing the dungeon tiles -- at least if the 'Kingdom of the Ghouls' and 'Nightwyrm Fortress' serve as proof) are so unexciting and bland that as a DM I wouldn't run the adventures without redrawing them all. In fact, I'm reminded of the arrogance/hubris during the TSR era, when they were churning out stuff with the philosophy that "anything we publish, they'll buy, because we're the only official publisher doing it". 

To be frank, if the map galleries and excerpts are anything to judge these products by, I wouldn't run them even if they were completely free. I would not accept them even if I could get the *printed* copies for free (space on my book shelf is limited, after all). I'd rather run the 'Marco Volo'-series in all its "awesomeness", and that is saying a lot.  

So, it's only my own opinion, but I honestly think that when we're talking about published adventures, most 3PPs for 3E had better quality control than WoTC these days.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 21, 2009)

Primal said:


> So, it's only my own opinion, but I honestly think that when we're talking about published adventures, most 3PPs for 3E had better quality control than WoTC these days.



Spoken as a man who never judged the early years of the ENnies.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 21, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> If indeed WotC is threatened by the amount of sales generated by all other d20 3pp in aggregate, then they are in serious trouble.
> 
> As in, "I'm going to eat these scraps of gristle myself because if I give them to the dog, I will starve," kind of trouble.




The "threat" is not financial, I think.  It is brand oriented.  The OGL left Wotc in less than full control of their brand.  From that flows the potential for harm to the brand and only then to harm to the bottom line coming from harm to the brand.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 21, 2009)

carmachu said:


> The problem is sir, that one only has to look at their actions and the results. Maybe it wasnt intential, maybe it was. But they cut the staff working on the GSL, delayed it for a while with the revisions and arent exactly jumping up and down to fix the situations.
> 
> Scott is a great person from your words, and a couple of others probably as well. But a handful of people,speaking on the openess of the OGL or a more open GSL doesnt quite cancel out WotC's actually actions.
> 
> ...




Agreed.  Organizations are not monolithic.  There will be differing points of view.  At the end of the day, however, what is actually done and put into practice is the corporate policy.  Any voices contrary to the objective evidence of corporate action are necessarily in the moinority for their point of view obviously did not hold sufficient sway to effect the corporate policy and actions flowing thereform.  In other words, Scott may be nice but his views are not those of Wotc as judged by Wotc's actions with respect to the GSL.  Believing otherwise is . . . overly hopeful.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Again, I think the ENWorld community tends to overestimate the importance of 3PP. If 3PP are only a blip on the screen to WotC, can the GSL really be called a fiasco? Sure its a fiasco to OGL/3PP fans, but is it a fiasco to the larger D&D community or WotC/D&D itself?
> 
> I think things get muddled because of people's personal stake in things, and the fact that ENWorld seems to have a larger percentage of OGL/3PP fans than is the norm.





Yes.  The GSL as part of a 4e launch that split the market is a fiasco.

Whether the split is 30-40% (split) vs 70-60% (going witgh 4e) as someone attributed to a Wotc source up thread or 20% (split)vs 80% (going with 4e) as Mistwell optimistically imagined upthread that big of a loss due to the split in either case is a fiasco.

The GSL comes in precisely because it impacts the likes of EnWorlders.  It is fashionable to say EnWorlders opinions do not matter but the term for internet active brand advocates (and that can be positive or negative advocacy) is "thought leaders."  In other words these are your committed die-hards who run groups speak to others and generally influence thought.  They are not all important but they are not trivial and do have importance.

The GSL negatively impacted thought leaders making it all the more unlikely Wotc can heal the rift and all the more likely the split will harden at least for the duration of 4e.

So fiasco is the right term all around.  4e and the GSL are perfect examples of how to damage a brand and how not to reinvent one.  Someone upthread called Wotc "arrogant" in their approach - bingo.  And that overweening pride has gone before the fall - the split of the D&D brand audience.  If Hasbro really cared about D&D, which I don't think they do, people at the top of Wotc would have been fired for so mishandling the marketing of 4e.

Yeah.  Fiasco.


----------



## Mark (Jun 21, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Spoken as a man who never judged the early years of the ENnies.





Agreed.  From the first year, Children of the Grave comes to mind.


----------



## Primal (Jun 21, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Spoken as a man who never judged the early years of the ENnies.




Hey, even *THAT* stuff trumps -- in my opinion -- the "official" adventures WoTC is putting out these days!


----------



## ggroy (Jun 21, 2009)

Primal said:


> Hey, even *THAT* stuff trumps -- in my opinion -- the "official" adventures WoTC is putting out these days!




I found and picked up most of the "official" WotC modules for 3E/3.5E and the 4E ones released so far.  So far none of them are particularly impressive, other than maybe Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.

Awhile ago I went through my friends' collections of 2E AD&D modules, and didn't find many which were particularly impressive.

Going back to the days of 1E AD&D, there were several impressive modules such as the giants-drow-demonweb series (ie. G1-2-3, D1-2-3, Q1)


----------



## olshanski (Jun 21, 2009)

Speaking for myself:
If necromancer had been publishing 4E at the launch of 4E, I would have made the transition. I was the DM for a group of 6.

As it was, I bailed on 4E. 2 of my players moved on to 4E, the other 4 did not.

In the past few months, I've played 4E using the quick start rules as a player, with a very talented DM.  (Keep on the shadowfell) I just feel that the train has left the station and I have no interest in pursuing the game.

I've purchased the remainder of the DCC line, and Ptolus, but I think I'm done with 3.5, and I also am not going to jump on 4E.

From here on out I am running a homebrew game or playing board games (Power Grid, Ticket to Ride, etcetera).

Perhaps I'll rejoin D&D when the fifth edition is released... or perhaps I'll be playing some indie game like Barbarians of Lemuria or Dogs in the Vinyard.


----------



## Mark (Jun 21, 2009)

olshanski said:


> Power Grid





That's a particularly fun game.  My group plays a good deal of that and Race for the Galaxy and Ninja Burger.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 21, 2009)

All the WotC material leaves me cold, honestly.  Adventures especially.  The Goodman Games stuff is cool, and to have Necromancer making things for 4E would have been beautiful.  4E desperately needs some character and depth, and the 3rd party companies are the only chance to get it, apparently, based on WotC's idea of what makes a good game product.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 21, 2009)

Primal said:


> Well, I don't actually own any modules, or subscribe to DDI, but based on what I *HAVE* read (KotS, FR books) and seen on the WoTC site (excerpts from several modules plus map galleries), my own opinion is that when it comes to adventures, there is *very* little quality control at WoTC these days. In fact, most of those modules are based on the premise that exciting combats (especially with "interesting" use of terrain) = fun. No regard to good backstories or logical motivations for villains, and the maps (these days, apparently, consisting mostly of utilizing the dungeon tiles -- at least if the 'Kingdom of the Ghouls' and 'Nightwyrm Fortress' serve as proof) are so unexciting and bland that as a DM I wouldn't run the adventures without redrawing them all. In fact, I'm reminded of the arrogance/hubris during the TSR era, when they were churning out stuff with the philosophy that "anything we publish, they'll buy, because we're the only official publisher doing it".
> 
> To be frank, if the map galleries and excerpts are anything to judge these products by, I wouldn't run them even if they were completely free. I would not accept them even if I could get the *printed* copies for free (space on my book shelf is limited, after all). I'd rather run the 'Marco Volo'-series in all its "awesomeness", and that is saying a lot.
> 
> So, it's only my own opinion, but I honestly think that when we're talking about published adventures, most 3PPs for 3E had better quality control than WoTC these days.




What on earth does FR have to do with modules? Seriously, you are basing everything on 1 single adventure, which happens to be the worst they have published for 4e? Hardly makes sense. For what it is worth, I own all adventures published for 4e (wotc and 3pp) and while not all are perfect, there is definitely some really great stuff in there. 

Of course you are entitled to any opinion that you wish to have, it just seems to me that you base it on very little.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2009)

Jack Colby said:


> All the WotC material leaves me cold, honestly.  Adventures especially.  The Goodman Games stuff is cool, and to have Necromancer making things for 4E would have been beautiful.  4E desperately needs some character and depth, and the 3rd party companies are the only chance to get it, apparently, based on WotC's idea of what makes a good game product.





I have to say I really like Goodmans 4E modules. In fact I have liked them better than most of their 3E line. I find it strange to say, considering comments about 4E being weak on role play, but I have found the story a lot more substantive in their 4E modules.

I don't know, maybe because I run them using C&C instead of 4E some how makes the story "pop" more. Whatever the reason I have been much happier with Goodmans 4E mods.

I haven't bought any of WOTC mods, but that is because I have played through 2 of them and part of a third, and found them all very predictable. The only thing WOTC has done, adventure wise, that I liked, was the skill challenge in the last WW D&D Game Day, the one where we were going down the underground river on the raft.

I have been thinking of buying the new Ghoul module since it apparently has some kind of connection to the old Dungeon module Wolfgang did, but I am afraid it will be just as predictable and bland as the others have been.


----------



## tomlib (Jun 21, 2009)

*Revenue*

I think this is an interesting topic beyond the ramifications of Wizards of the Coast (WotC) and Third Party Publishers (3PP). The question here, at least as I see it, relates to an open license versus a closed one.

In this case WotC has a product, 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. Are they better off allowing other people to produce and sell material for this product in addition to their own or are they better off keeping it all in house and forcing other companies to create their own systems?

At first glance, I think the latter (closed license) seems to be the winner. Why should WotC allow anyone else to sell product for their system which might well cut into their own sales?

However, upon deeper inspection I think (my opinion) that the former (open license) generates far more interest, more creativity, more product, better ideas, and a better overall 4th Edition experience for everyone. This better experience will drive increased sales for all parties. A worse experience will dampen all sales even if only one company is selling. A bigger share of a smaller market versus a smaller share of a bigger market argument.

Let's imagine WotC worked out an open license 18 months before releasing 4th Edition and that upon release dozens of companies and even individuals had product available. I think (my opinion) we wouldn't be seeing edition wars. I think the changeover would have been rapid and well received. (Personally I like many of the changes in 4th Edition particularly in regards to high level play).

I equate this to a Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica debate. I absolutely believe that an open system, with as great a range of contributers providing a wide array of ideas promotes the widest distribution of a product. I think (my opinion again) that 3PP help WotC tremendously by attracting an audience to a wide variety of product.

Another example might be the automobile market when going well the big boys make more money even though there are many smaller companies producing cars as well.

Finally, from a purely selfish respect, an open license provides me with a greater variety of material (some of it dreck to be certain) and that can only be to my benefit.

Anyway, happy gaming all.

Tom


----------



## carmachu (Jun 21, 2009)

ggroy said:


> I found and picked up most of the "official" WotC modules for 3E/3.5E and the 4E ones released so far. So far none of them are particularly impressive, other than maybe Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.
> 
> Awhile ago I went through my friends' collections of 2E AD&D modules, and didn't find many which were particularly impressive.
> 
> Going back to the days of 1E AD&D, there were several impressive modules such as the giants-drow-demonweb series (ie. G1-2-3, D1-2-3, Q1)




To be fair, there are a couple other exceptional ones beyond that one. Red hand of Doom for example, is pretty widely known as quite good. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was pretty good.

Overall yes Wotc ones werent very good.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jun 21, 2009)

carmachu said:


> To be fair, there are a couple other exceptional ones beyond that one. Red hand of Doom for example, is pretty widely known as quite good. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was pretty good.
> 
> Overall yes Wotc ones werent very good.




Egads! I have to agree with this.  Red Hand of Doom, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk are about the only modules I really liked from Wizard.
Most of the great stuff came from Necro, Paizo, Goodman and to a lesser extent for me, GR. I think the eggheads at WotC realized this as well, which may have accounted for some parts of their GSL being so draconic (purely speculative on my part of course).

If I were to be interested in playing 4E, Id buy Goodman exclusively at this point, at least until Necro and Paizo jumped on.


----------



## Primal (Jun 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> What on earth does FR have to do with modules? Seriously, you are basing everything on 1 single adventure, which happens to be the worst they have published for 4e? Hardly makes sense. For what it is worth, I own all adventures published for 4e (wotc and 3pp) and while not all are perfect, there is definitely some really great stuff in there.
> 
> Of course you are entitled to any opinion that you wish to have, it just seems to me that you base it on very little.




By Mystra's Lost Spell, FRCG does have a couple of adventures in it, and I see them as part of the whole, i.e. official 4E adventures designed and published by WoTC staffers (I'm leaving Dungeon out, because I don't have a DDi subscription); otherwise I'm comparing the H/P/E-series to 3E adventures, and judging by the excerpts and maps these cannot hold a candle to their 3E counterparts (or even most adventures I've read from 3PPs). I haven't read any Goodman 4E stuff, but it's not hard to imagine that I would likely prefer them over KotS, Thunderspire et al. The only adventure I have heard good, overall positive comments about is King of the Trollhaunt Warrens, so that's probably an exception.   

As for rulebooks, that's a different ball game; what I've read at my FLGS, it seems WoTC has succeeded in putting out books with solid, balanced and well-designed content.

(@PC & Mark: alright, that was a bit of a hyperbole, but it was meant to drive my point home... )


----------



## Primal (Jun 21, 2009)

ggroy said:


> I found and picked up most of the "official" WotC modules for 3E/3.5E and the 4E ones released so far.  So far none of them are particularly impressive, other than maybe Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.
> 
> Awhile ago I went through my friends' collections of 2E AD&D modules, and didn't find many which were particularly impressive.
> 
> Going back to the days of 1E AD&D, there were several impressive modules such as the giants-drow-demonweb series (ie. G1-2-3, D1-2-3, Q1)




I liked most FR adventures (the only one I didn't like was 'Mysteries of the Moonsea'), plus the first series of 3.0 modules (you can actually easily base a whole campaign around 'Speaker in Dreams' only). Then, the 'Expedition...'-series, Fortress of the Yuan-Ti, Barrow of the Forgotten King, Red Hand of Doom; all of these are superior in quality (again, in my opinion) to what WotC has published for 4E. And I liked a lot of 3PP stuff like the Goodman modules and Rappan Athuk.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 21, 2009)

This is just my own private theory, but in actuality Paizo has made some great effort to provide 4E content in their modules. Not 4E stat blocks, of course (these are pretty easy to pick up if you got the 4E MM1 and MM2), but modules that contain more than the occasional nod to 4E.

Just to mention two examples - and I recommend everyone to check on them in person when next leafing through these products in their FLGS:

"The Armageddon Echo" has people visit an Elven Town in the *Shadowfell*, and "End of Eternity" has the party visit the *Elemental Chaos* replete with Primordials (renamed "proteans") - the Pathfinder issue even dedicates a whole ecology article to them.*

That's just two individual instances, but for me these products fill a nichè. I love the 4E MMs and appreciate the ease of plugging 4E monsters into older modules. But 4E modules by WotC themselves are, as Primal put it, not that in terms of plot intricacy. For me, any 4E module you buy in the shop serves the same function as _Dungeon Delve _- you get some pretty exciting encounters which you can weave into an adventure of your own making. Or - and here I get back to Paizo - you could combine them with someone else's story-rich offering.**

The main issue, of course, is why you would want new or contemporary ("story-rich") modules at all when the past can serve. Well, that's true to be sure but, as I said, it IS refreshing to see a company put some good effort into making the new cosmology tick and bring home their _exotic _nature in a way that WotC' own products (MotP, P1, P2) continuously fall short of doing.


So here's my overall conclusion of the points I raised. *To contribute highly valuable stuff for a 4E DM, a 3PP company doesn't need the GSL.* While the GSL will help a 3PP product to get recognition, beyond that it's simply hampering. A 3PP product could well be more rewarding to a 4E DM if it is complementory and not supplanting of 4E product; that is, if it doesn't even attempt to include or create new 4E mechanics when WotC is far better suited to provided these and there's already aplenty thereof. That was my verdict on Kobold's Quarterly and is, in fact, my verdict for the 3PP product I've liked best in the last year. Leave the mechanics of exciting encounters and powers to WotC, and give us some story meat to put on these bones!

* There's a third instance, similar to these, but I leave it to others (familiar with the product in question, which I am not) to verify it: "Memory of Darkness" actually portrays a *Feywild *environment.

** See, I don't get people who say "Why should I buy 4E _Kingdom of the Ghouls_ when I already got _Dungeon _70?". These are two completely different but strictly *complementory *options, and putting them together on your table will create a terrific set of sessions.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 21, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Yeah, your right, "points of light" doesn't relate to 4E marketing at all.



Oh, the vision thing. It's a very good question, very direct, and I'm not going to answer it. I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 21, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> "End of Eternity" has the party visit the *Elemental Chaos* replete with Primordials (renamed "proteans") - the Pathfinder issue even dedicates a whole ecology article to them.*




I'd be surprised if it uses any of the WotC terms *goes back to look at my copy*

But regarding the proteans in PF#22 (and in Paizo's planar book as well). The proteans' home plane is known as The Maelstrom. And they're conceptually very, very different from WotC's primordials. WotC's primordials are vaguely like the Greek titans, and have a thing against the gods of 4e. The proteans are more like a physical manifestation of the Maelstrom's reaction to the rest of the cosmos, like an immune reaction to the advent of a very foreign concept of law and stability. 

They were there before the gods but perhaps only within Golarion's cosmos, since it's not a settled question of where the gods came from in the first place. The proteans also don't have any monolithic ideology, instead being split apart into innumerable groups -called choruses- each with a specific vision of how to carry out the Maelstrom's will. The gods also don't have any monolithic interaction with them either, excepting perhaps Asmodeus.

That said, if you use the proteans, regardless of what cosmology you set them in (heck even plugged into 4e's default) I'd be flattered. A lot of stuff I make can be adapted to other cosmologies if that's your thing, though some of the larger context they were created within might be lost if you don't also bring along some other concepts with them.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 25, 2009)

Qwillion said:


> Necromancer Games had a hell of a sweet spot for with the S&S brand,  any company would have wanted that type of positioning, I am sure they struggled to regain that kind of distribution as a print publisher (examples of Kenzerco and Paizo partnerships come to mind) Now they will have to recreate themselves as a pdf and PoD publisher.
> 
> I hope that Necromancer Games has tremendous success.



Okay. I have to chime in here.

While I personally agree with you regarding the S&S Studio brand, the truth is a lot more convoluted.

Internet-savvy d20/OGL fans quickly learned they could count on great d20 products under the Sword & Sorcery Studios brand. However, that brand doesn't get as much love from the retailers (this is based on personal experience) in my neck of the woods. And I bet it's the same in a lot of other markets too.

For example, there is one specific FLGS here in Edmonton that considers ALL S&S products to be poo. (If it doesn't say D&D on the cover then it isn't D&D, in that store, period.) S&S Studio products are regulated to bins where they collect dust.

The owner of the store doesn't give much thought to Pathfinder either. Now, his opinion might change as Pathfinder grows into a successful brand (I think it will), but I cannot hope for him to change his mind. (There are other FLGS in Edmonton where Pathfinder gets its due.)

Also, many local retailers I know either never knew the difference between a S&S Studio/Necromancer book and a S&S Studio/Malhavoc book or they didn't care! To them, S&S Studio books were all the same mess -- 3PP books that WERE NEVER truly D&D. (A few knew better... but only a select few.)

Of course, the good part is that those same retailers now discount all their S&S Studio books. It saves me money.


----------

