Necromancer Games-update by Orcus

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.