General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by Harlekin; 19th June 2009 at 06:43 PM..
Reason: clarity
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.
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.
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
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.
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
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).
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.
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
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."
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
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.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
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.
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.
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orcus
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.)
Quote:
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.
__________________ "You want to play "Semantics and Lawyers"? Go ahead. We'll be busy kickin' ass and chewing Stygian Black Lotus- the best!" - Predavolk
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).
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
