re: No 4E for Necromancer Games!

[CodexofRome]

re: No 4E for Necromancer Games!

It is a distinct shame that Wizards has chosen a license that isn't acceptable to the third party developers. As was amply proven with the OGL/d20 licenses, there was MORE than enough customer support to go around. Wizards cannot possibly publish everything that gamers will buy.

Wizards needs to seriously reconsider their approach to the GSL. You are not serving your customers, who are going to buy most of your products regardless.

Rethink your stance, Wizards.

 

[unan oranis]

I like seeing these companies standing up for a better deal.

More power to them!

I hope wizards appeases them and we can have independent 4e stuff like how 3e was.

 

[bolen]

so who is using the new OGL (or whatever it is called now).

I have counted

- Mongoose
- Goodman games

Is that it for the big name publishers?

 

[Mark Oliva]

Just some personal opinion: This announcement, I think, is the dangerous side of 4E and the GSL. If you read it carefully, you'll note that Necromancer (once a major d20 publisher) hasn't put out anything new for a year and isn't going to put out anything new in the near future ... nothing at all until WotC channges the GSL to reflect Necromancer's desires or until the new 3.5 Pathfinder system is finished and ready to go.

I'd say that it's highly likely that Necromancer, in view of this standpoint, already has vanished from the marketplace and won't return. It's just that Clark Peterson doesn't seem to understand that yet.

A big slice of the major d20 publishing segment now has refused the GSL and 4E. Other important names include Paizo and Green Ronin. A third player, Kenzar, has decided to take the interesting route of putting out 4E compatible products without using the GSL. It will be interesting to see if the Hasbro lawyers sit still for that one.

The circle slowly comes back to where it was with TSR: D&D is becoming a game system monopoly again. That's OK for RPGers who are satisfied with limiting themselves to WotC products only. For our part, we're really glad that we jumped that ship.

Mark Oliva
Webmaster, the Vintyri Project (TM)
Internet-Dungeons Daring: http://www.dungeons-daring.org <http://www.dungeons-daring.org>
E-Mail: info@dungeons-daring.org <mailto:info@dungeons-daring.org>

Am Hasenlöhle 12
91481 Altershausen, Germany
Tel.: +49 9166 99 54 10

Oliva Steigerwald EDV Verlag
Inh. Gerdi Oliva
USt-IdNr.: DE133935450
Gewerbeanmeldung: Verwaltungsgemeinschaft Diespeck

(This information is required by German law.)

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well isn't that a kick in the face? Wasn't Necromancer Games one of the biggest 4E supporters? Didn't they hire a playtester to create 4E products before they could legeally see those rules?

 

[Baumi]

Just want to add another GSL Publisher: Redbrick, who announced a new Earthdawn Spinnoff for 4E (http://www.ageoflegend4e.com/)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just some personal opinion: This announcement, I think, is the dangerous side of 4E and the GSL. If you read it carefully, you'll note that Necromancer (once a major d20 publisher) hasn't put out anything new for a year and isn't going to put out anything new in the near future ... nothing at all until WotC channges the GSL to reflect Necromancer's desires or until the new 3.5 Pathfinder system is finished and ready to go.

I'd say that it's highly likely that Necromancer, in view of this standpoint, already has vanished from the marketplace and won't return. It's just that Clark Peterson doesn't seem to understand that yet.

Keep in mind that Necromancer Games is more or less a "side-project" from Clark - he's still working a regular job as a lawyer, if I am not mistaken. That's different from Paizo, for example, with its full-time employees. Necromancer Games might be "vanished" from the marketplace (except PDFs?), but he can return relatively easy...

---

off-topic: Are you sure you need to add your business information twice? Or did you change your sig after you posted this message? (And I am not even sure you need to add it at all, according to German Law - unless your posts here are business communications...)

 

[Tclynch]

I think we'l see support of Pathfinder (and True 20) grow when it finally comes out. It doesn't bode well for WotC that you can count the number of companies supporting 4th on one hand....

 

[evilref]

I think we'l see support of Pathfinder (and True 20) grow when it finally comes out. It doesn't bode well for WotC that you can count the number of companies supporting 4th on one hand....

It doesn't bode well for Paizo that you can count the number of companies supporting Pathfinder on one hand.....


WotC doesn't need the GSL or 3rd party support for 4e for it to be a succesful game. Considering how many games are succesful without any third party support, assuming it's required for 4e is a mistake.

 

[phloog]

It doesn't bode well for Paizo that you can count the number of companies supporting Pathfinder on one hand.....


WotC doesn't need the GSL or 3rd party support for 4e for it to be a succesful game. Considering how many games are succesful without any third party support, assuming it's required for 4e is a mistake.

I guess I'm not sure I agree that Paizo needs 3pp, so it doesn't bode well for Paizo, but it's somehow wrong to assume that 3pp support is NOT needed for 4e - - I know WOTC is bigger, but it seems like IF the arguments that seem to have generated the GSL are true - 3pp steal part of the pie, then having a limited number of high quality 3pp support Paizo is great.