WotC: Character Builder's effect on Third Party Publishers

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by fissionessence

I don't really use the character builder, despite having a DDI subscription. That's mainly because it doesn't support 'house rules' (read: 3PPs) very well/at all.

Any feedback or comments? If you represent a third party publisher, do you feel that this has affected you, and would you release 'house rule packages' for your products given the opportunity?

~ fissionessence

The demo version allows houserules: in regards to money, gear, stats, etc.

So I'm surprised the full version you pay for doesn't.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Ktulu

So long as the DDI exists, I don't have as much use for the 3rd party stuff.

I think this pretty much summarizes the issue I (and other publishers) are experiencing.

And kudos to WotC; it's a great move, and the Builder is fantastic. I can't criticise anyone else for designating it the be-all-and-end-all of allowed material, because I use it that way myself. It's a fantastic product, and it has in a very short time positioned itself as a requirement for the game for a large portion of the market.

I love the Builder, and I'm sure I will never generate another charater without one. It has quickly become so intrinsic to my gaming, that generating a character with paper and pen feels like powering my TV with coal.

[Alan Shutko]

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II

The demo version allows houserules: in regards to money, gear, stats, etc.

Well, sort of. You can do certain things: change a computed value which ends up with an untyped bonus. Give yourself extra feats. Add money, gear, etc. You can give yourself powers you don't have the prereqs for.

But you can't create new powers and have them computable. You can create items, but the created thing doesn't really do anything. You can't create new feats. Bigger changes like races, etc aren't possible... you have to then hand-edit lots of fields.

[tsadkiel]

This is my Character Builder wish as well - I would love to be able to download a file and add the Advanced Player's Guide or One Bad Egg's Shroud stuff to the Character Builder.

And it has definitely limited my third party purchases. Thing is, it hasn't increased my WotC purchases, so I'm just buying less.

[MichaelSomething]

I can't help but think that the DDI's side effect of hurting third party publishers is considered a good thing to some at WOTC. However, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory; or is it?

DUH DUH DUH!

[Nightson]

I am certain that they want people to be able to house rule things easily with the character builder. I don't imagine we'll get it anytime soon, but I bet we'll get it eventually.

[Derulbaskul]

I would echo many of the other posters and concur that I have less interest now in 3PP books focussed on PC options (I only ever DM rather than play) because of the Character Builder.

In addition to this, my favourite world is the Forgotten Realms, particularly as depicted in the FRCS for 3E. However, the utility of the Character Builder is so high that I have decided to go with 4E's version of the Forgotten Realms despite initially disliking most, if not all, of the changes. The combination of simple PC generation through the Builder and the excellent layout of the Player's Guide as a guide for players (such a radical concept... NOT!... but seemingly never tried before) means that I am simply hooked on FR4E also, as are my players. Now if we could just get some decent maps like the one for Cormyr in Dragon....

I look forward to a decent set of DM tools particularly in relation to monster and NPC design.

[Particle_Man]

This is interesting and something I had not considered. It does not affect me directly, because none of my friends use CB, but it is interesting to see how it affects those who do.

[CubeKnight]

One potential problem with allowing 3PPs to produce "DataSets" to import into the Builder: If that were available, what's stopping anyone from making a DataSet with the powers/races/clases from, say, Arcane Power? Or any other WotC book? And then upload it somewhere?

[fissionessence]

Do you hear this Wizards!? The character builder is great, and people love it [too much], so let us third party publishers ride along with you on the wave of the future!

~

[RefinedBean]

The problem with including some kind of file with your 3PP publication is that it can be spread around the Internet much easier than a .pdf, even. You're basically giving the crunch of your supplement for free.

Now, if 3PP could pay a certain fee to get their stuff included in the CB? Hrm.

[Hussar]

Wow, y'know, this makes me a bit of a sad panda. I know I've bitch and moaned about 3pp in the past, but, wow, that's sad. There's a lot of great stuff out there that will never see the light of day, even less so than before, because of this.

I know the CB is a great tool, but, it seems like it's standardizing the game to an extent that was never seen before. And I think that's a bit sad to tell the truth.

I wonder if a licensing deal might work, like Refined Bean just mentioned. Pay WOTC to put your stuff in the CB as an add-on. I imagine there are all sorts of issues with that though and, to be honest, I'm not sure if WOTC would ever see enough benefit out of it to consider it.

[Jan van Leyden]

It's essentially a non-issue for me, as my players tend to limit their characters to basic - shall I say "core" - stuff. Back when 3e was new I pushed, e.g., the Book of Eldritch Might, but only one spell, one feat and once the variant bard were used.

Still I wish that the CB would be much more extensible, with an interface to add new powers, races or other stuff. I doubt this will be made possible, though. As the game systems develops, the data structures will probably develop as well. So WotC would either have to develop and maintain a house-rule updater or you'd have to enter all the stuf again next month.

For 3PPs it would be a perfect way to advertise their stuff by including it in the CB. On the other hand they would have to make sure that their products contain much more than crunch only.
See, I've given Arcane Power a pass because, judging by Martial Power, the book won't add anything substantial to the info in the CB.

What we see here is essentially a battle between convenience and extensibility. Will the 3PP supporters use PCGen despite having to enter all the data, even from the core books, on their own?

[fissionessence]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Wow, y'know, this makes me a bit of a sad panda. I know I've bitch and moaned about 3pp in the past, but, wow, that's sad. There's a lot of great stuff out there that will never see the light of day, even less so than before, because of this.

I know the CB is a great tool, but, it seems like it's standardizing the game to an extent that was never seen before. And I think that's a bit sad to tell the truth.

I'm also somewhat saddened. However, according to this poll:

I currently play x edition and I do or don't buy 3pp stuff. A POLL

. . . the slightly larger half of 4E players/DMs still allow 3PPs. How indicative overall that is of the true numbers, I don't know, but it's at least better than what's been represented in the replies of this thread.

~

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

The problem with including some kind of file with your 3PP publication is that it can be spread around the Internet much easier than a .pdf, even. You're basically giving the crunch of your supplement for free.

That is indeed a problem. I think WotC might actually be willing to create a "rules exchange format" for supporting houserulers better. But would 3PP be interested in it without some watermarking or DRM system protecting their material?
It's not really bad for WotC if every 3PP advertises with a "Compatible with the WotC Character Builder" Logo. It's surely gives people a motivation to keep a DDI account. (Especially if you can only install such updates via the WotC website and a valid DDI account.)
But of course this would cost WotC development time and server bandwidth, and the 3PP need to be sure their material remains protected.

Now, if 3PP could pay a certain fee to get their stuff included in the CB? Hrm.

So DDI users get their stuff for free, and 3PP have to pay for that? I don't think that will work.

[cdrcjsn]

Wasn't one of the touted features from before the ability for DMs to incorporate house rules into DDI? Did that fall by the wayside?

To be honest, I really never thought about this before. Most of my play these days is with the RPGA since it's so convenient (I don't have to worry about missing games or changing my schedule on a whim). The RPGA only uses core + Dragon, so the lack of 3PP never entered my consciousness until I saw this thread.

If WotC goes ahead with their plans for DM house rule capability in DDI, then I think allowing 3PP to provide files for import into DDI won't be too far behind.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by cdrcjsn

Wasn't one of the touted features from before the ability for DMs to incorporate house rules into DDI? Did that fall by the wayside?

To be honest, I really never thought about this before. Most of my play these days is with the RPGA since it's so convenient (I don't have to worry about missing games or changing my schedule on a whim). The RPGA only uses core + Dragon, so the lack of 3PP never entered my consciousness until I saw this thread.

If WotC goes ahead with their plans for DM house rule capability in DDI, then I think allowing 3PP to provide files for import into DDI won't be too far behind.

There is house rule support - you can perform various changes to your character that allow you to bypass the rules - but it is not on the level that you could create a "house rule" file that would add powers, feats or what-else to the builder. It's mostly on a "per-character" basis.

[baphomet68]

Originally Posted by CubeKnight

One potential problem with allowing 3PPs to produce "DataSets" to import into the Builder: If that were available, what's stopping anyone from making a DataSet with the powers/races/clases from, say, Arcane Power? Or any other WotC book? And then upload it somewhere?

The pirated CB has been available for just a bit less time than the legal one. the update patches have been about two weeks behind the subscription service. I think that WOTC better watch out here - if they drag their feet on adding easily incorporated house rules and 3pp to the CB, some clever reprobate will make an easy to use, DIY create your own content patch for the pirated CB.

Updates to the CB are making it to the "pirate community" without a dataset feature for 3pp. While it would be great to expand the usefulness of the CB, WOTC seem to be pushing 4e towards a more homogenized game. They do not want to share space at the feeding trough. I will keep my eyes peeled for some one besides WOTC to make an editable "house rules" CB patch.

[Hadrian the Builder]

I forego 3rd party content because I can't use it in character builder. What's stopping a consortium of publishers from working with a company like Code Monkey Publishing to develop an independent char builder that can use WotC's XML output and can modify the character with publisher material? Or even just creating an independent charbuilder with a mutually agreed upon schema for creating new content?

WotC may be in a good position, but they are not (or don;t have to be) the only game in town.

[Drkfathr1]

Thankfully I avoid this issue by not using the CB.

I like alot of 3rd party material, and I use a lot of house rules, thus the CB is not of much use to me.

Pencil/Pen and paper still work just fine, and my brain appreciates the exercise!