Necromancer Games-update by Orcus

[ProfessorCirno]

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]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

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]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

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]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

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]

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]

Originally Posted by carmachu

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]

Originally Posted by Hunter In Darkness

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

Also appreciated. And you're both right.

[Orcus]

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

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]

Thanks for responding Clark.

Originally Posted by Orcus

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]

Originally Posted by Orcus

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.)

Originally Posted by Orcus

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.

Originally Posted by Orcus

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.

Originally Posted by Orcus

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!)

Originally Posted by Orcus

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]

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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]

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]

never mind.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Dark Mistress

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]

Originally Posted by JoeGKushner

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]

Originally Posted by Mistwell

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Orcus

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.

Originally Posted by Orcus

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.

Originally Posted by Orcus

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.

Originally Posted by Orcus

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.

Originally Posted by Orcus

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

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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.