WotC: Character Builder's effect on Third Party Publishers

[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.

Scanning over some D&D games starting up, many DMs allow 'anything in the character builder.' Though none spelled it out, I'd expect many who might have otherwise accept third party products would no longer do so because it's not accessible in the character builder!

So what effect does this have on third party products? Granted, the phenomenon may not be as widespread as I'm fearing, but nonetheless I think as the character builder grows in success, it will continue to negatively impact DMs' and players' interest in products that they can't use with their character builder of choice.

I have suggested this in other threads in the past, but I think there needs to be a fuller support for 'house rules'. Publishers or DMs should be able to create 'house rule packages' that can be put in a 'house rules' folder in the character builder, passed around between players/consumers, etc. Different packages would be able to sit next to each other in the same folder and be used, until they were removed from said folder. This would make it potentially easy for publishers to create a method by which users could use their products and the character builder, and DMs and players alike would have a feature that people have already been asking for (that is, more house rules support).

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

Comments

	Thanks for getting me thinking.
	Excellent topic for discussion
	Very astute observation! I'm glad you made something subtle into something we can be aware of.
	Tought this was obvious, seems it was not. Good thing you mentioned it.
	One of the pernicious effects of this "convenience"

[Piratecat]

You know, I'd totally believe this. I think I limit my 3rd party support because it isn't CB-compatible. Interesting; I hadn't given it much thought before.

[Scribble]

I was thinking about that one myself, mostly from the standpoint of a DM- that it would be nice to be able to just hand my players a file of my house rules that they can easily use.

I did notice you can import them from a character or something... Could someone load up a bunch of house rules into one character and use that to transfer them to someone else's CB?

I do agree they should allow for house rule "packages."

[Glyfair]

One thing I hope for in the future is better 3rd party support. That being said, I haven't really played with the ability to create house rules yet. What can be done with 3rd party products now? How far can I go with implementing a new class or race?

Still, I have to admit, this does point out one thing I've noticed. 4E support from 3rd parties seems to be very heavily player oriented. I personally don't need another race, and am not too interested in new classes right now (haven't explored what is there right now).

I am far more interested in new monster books. Besides Goodman's monster support, and one book from Fantasy Flight, monster books have been getting the short end of the stick.

[DarkMasterBR]

Well, to be honest, I just wish that the CB will be updated to be easier to implement House Rules on it. For example, I just give everyone twice the number of utility powers and we use the powers in WotBS Player's Guide, and we still do our characters on CB. It's more work, sure, but it's doable. So while I can see your complains and it may actually happen, it didn't happen to me. I just wish future patches will make the CB more robust.

[alleynbard]

I hadn't thought of this either. I have some 3rd party material but the players haven't selected anything from it. Part of that might have to do with the fact they don't have it right in their faces while working with the CB. If I could just send out a file to them, that would be very helpful.

Good point. Thank you for bringing this up. This has really gotten me thinking.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by fissionessence

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?

I'm about to find out the hard way.

Yes, it has occurred to me. WotBS has new feats, powers, and so forth. None of these will be in the Character Builder; people will have to apply them manually.

If we could release a file which added those things to the Builder, I'd do it in a second.

[Agamon]

I don't even buy WotC crunch splats, and only allow stuff from them because the happen to be in the CB. So for me, anyway, it's a non-issue.

But I agree that the CB could negatively effect the number of 3PP splats being used. We could see a shift in what's offered by 3PPs (more adventures and setting books, less splats).

Edit: I did find it annoying that house rules are so limited in CB. I made up some powers for an item last session and can't create or edit a card for it. :/

[Harr]

This is a great point, and I think that there's an excellent chance that this is happening.

Originally Posted by fissionessence

I have suggested this in other threads in the past, but I think there needs to be a fuller support for 'house rules'. Publishers or DMs should be able to create 'house rule packages' that can be put in a 'house rules' folder in the character builder, passed around between players/consumers, etc. Different packages would be able to sit next to each other in the same folder and be used, until they were removed from said folder. This would make it potentially easy for publishers to create a method by which users could use their products and the character builder, and DMs and players alike would have a feature that people have already been asking for (that is, more house rules support).

This on the other hand, will never happen.

We're talking about the company who still legally forbids Fantasy Grounds from developing an official 4e character sheet for their game table even after putting their own game table off development. (edit -> luckily the great fan community of FG gets around this by keeping its own fan-made 4e sheet which is freely available to everybody).

I'd love to see both things happen no doubt, but you have to be realistic about these things.

[Dice4Hire]

I just do not see this happening either. Asking WOTC to spend a lot of money coding in various options for 3PP into the CB is not in their best interests. Coding just their own stuff probably takes enough time and energy as it is.

I suppose if the format of the 3pp stuff was in the exact same format it would work better, but even still it would be a lot of work.

But how much is it needed? I normally play online (via Yahoogroups) and on most online games I have seen, 3pp are not allowed as it is hard to know who bought what, so most games are WOTC only, or even more restrictive core only. I know in all my 3E, 3.x and now 4E, I have never used any rules from 3pp.

[Badwe]

this looks like a job for XML.

in all seriousness, if the character builder could parse xml documents full of feats, powers, classes, etc. and even give them appropriate labels so they can be filtered like real sources, that would be quite handy. I see the hurdles to be as follows:

first, you have to get WotC's attention. seems easy enough as their people sometimes frequent these boards.

next, you need to convince them it won't damage their revenue. now this is easy to gloss over by focusing on the upside. if you were to make a case you would need to be extremely paranoid (from their frame of reference) and have solutions for any possible bumps.

third, you'd need to make a case that the developer time spent to do this is worthwhile. That is, there needs to be a clear line from creating this service to increasing profit over time to recoup the investment. this ties back to number 2: even if better interoperability increases the quality of D&D 4e as a whole, is there a risk that the profits will be realized only by 3pp and perhaps profit will be lost when primary products lose some of their appeal in being so much more "plugged in"?

fourth, related to the third, you need to vocalize (prefably with dollars). There needs to be a tangible group of people who will be increasing their investment in products wotc profits from standing with their dollars ready. This may be a tough sell, if your 3pp books are more plugged in, will you go out and buy 1pp splat books? maybe miniatures? Whoever these people are, they need to communicate en masse to WotC saying "I have these dollars in my hand, ready to spend, but the lack of 3pp interoperability is holding me back."

Ideally, lowering the dollar amounts related to 2 and 3 will mean a feasible number of people need to emerge for part 4. The major alternative i see is someone attempting to develop this independantly, but even someone with the time, skill, and will is likely to get mired in legal issues.

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by Morrus

I'm about to find out the hard way.

Yes, it has occurred to me. WotBS has new feats, powers, and so forth. None of these will be in the Character Builder; people will have to apply them manually.

If we could release a file which added those things to the Builder, I'd do it in a second.

You can send out a campaign setting file, with all your house rules. It's not fully integrated into the builder (it won't set prerequisites, it won't add in the bonuses, etc), but you will at least have the names of the things in front of players and available to put on the character sheet.

I was going to attach my test example, but ENWorld won't let me upload a .dndcamp file type. LOL

PS

[mach1.9pants]

Publishers or DMs should be able to create 'house rule packages' that can be put in a 'house rules' folder in the character builder, passed around between players/consumers, etc.

I absolutely love this idea. WE can only hope.

But I have thought of this before and I think the impact will be negative, especially on crunch heavy stuff (new char classes, for xample). How much of an impact I just don't know.

For me it hasn't made much of a difference, I buy (even stuff like the Witch Doctor class) not to use in game but just to read. So it hasn't effected my purchases. My players don't go too much into their PC's. THey are more interested in playing than parsing through books and maxing stuff. The Char Builder has meant they use more of the books I have brought, cos it is so easy. Previously they would mostly just pick from the PHB despite me having every splat under the sun!

[Nymrohd]

Conversely, I think the day the character builder can process at least basic house rules (powers, class/path features, feats) it will be a great boost for 3PP.
3PP products about as much as WotC's own splats, only got used during character creation if you had browsed them previously and found a cool idea you wanted to use. It was a huge pain to go through all the options. The CB makes all the options available at once. Admittedly it still takes some planning to create a built (mostly for abilty score reqs of feats) but I think it has changed the way players create characters massively. Buying something from a 3PP that I can add to the CB would pretty much guarantee that I will use or at least sample the product I bought, instead of just browsing it for ideas and maybe picking up one or two cool things I found there.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Storminator

I was going to attach my test example, but ENWorld won't let me upload a .dndcamp file type. LOL

Zip it and upload it. Zip files are fine.