Third Party: If So, Then What?

[tyrlaan]

I've said it before, and it may be a pipe-dream, but I like non-standard, non-generic settings.

My favorite purchases under the OGL/d20 STL were settings and supplements for those settings. While I have no use for generic character crunch, I love character crunch for new settings that fit in with a setting's themes.

I best get cracking on my project then - I'm trying to do exactly this!

 

[Angellis_ater]

The 3PP are, as far as I can see, generally moving over towards Pathfinder, or spreading out with their own systems, own ideas and generally abandoning ship with 4E. Those who focus on producing Adventures and Settings, as noted again and again in these discussions, seem to be the ones with a chance.

Personally, I've moved away from trying to make MONEY off 4E and we turned our 4E projects into a 4E Design House under DSP where we can house "hobby" projects (hobby in the sense of "probably not gonna turn a profit and must thus cost little to produce") since I still like designing.

 

[pawsplay]

If I were going to do a major 4e product, it would be a campaign setting. But I can think of few reasons why I wouldn't be better off doing it in Pathfinder. The only reason to do such a thing would be if you were particularly attuned to the 4e mechanics and did not feel you or someone you could hire would be able to produce something different but equivalent in-house. Since you are so far afield of the 4e mainstream, publishing a unique setting reallys puts you in competition not only with 3.5 and Pathfinder, but D6, Runequest, Fudge, and the rest. If the setting itself is the selling point, every way in which your design is constrained by licensing is going to make it a worse product.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If I were going to do a major 4e product, it would be a campaign setting. But I can think of few reasons why I wouldn't be better off doing it in Pathfinder. The only reason to do such a thing would be if you were particularly attuned to the 4e mechanics and did not feel you or someone you could hire would be able to produce something different but equivalent in-house. Since you are so far afield of the 4e mainstream, publishing a unique setting reallys puts you in competition not only with 3.5 and Pathfinder, but D6, Runequest, Fudge, and the rest. If the setting itself is the selling point, every way in which your design is constrained by licensing is going to make it a worse product.

On the other hand, 4E has potentially a larger available market for a well made setting.

 

[ggroy]

Might also be more advertising done by Paizo itself.

If you're a PAthfinder fan, you check paizo's homepage every day and what do you see.

At the top of the page is a blurb for new product paizo is selling and many a time, it is ALSO a 3pp product.

Paizo is probably smart enough to realize they can't do everything they want in house all at once. It's probably better for them to have some 3PPs on their side, in the remaining 3.5E niche market.

Who knows? For example, maybe that 3pp effort at producing a Pathfinder psionics system with a completely open playtest, could possibly end up in a year or two from now as the "semi-official" Pathfinder psionics system if there is a good reception.

I honestly was amazed that there were so many 3pp products released for 4e (in the One Bad Egg lthread) since I knew only of Wraith Recon.

Me too. I wasn't aware of many of the pdf and print-on-demand 4E 3pp publishers at first. I was only really aware of the printed 4E 3pp stuff I've seen at local FLGS, mainly titles from Mongoose, Goodman, and Expeditious Retreat Press.

 

[catsclaw227]

Count me in with the people with a ton of 3PP 3.x supplements. I read and/or used them a lot, especailly adventures, campaign settings and "locales".

For 4e, I would love to see a book of common skill challenges scaled by tier, NPCs, books like the 3.x "Foul Locales" series and some mini regions and organizations. Small scale, like towns, villages, taverns for regions and guilds, merc groups, cults, for organizations.

 

[catsclaw227]

And eventually, if WOTC opens up Monster builder (Adventure Tools) API, then some companion datasets for said applications.

 

[jmucchiello]

If I were going to do a major 4e product, it would be a campaign setting. But I can think of few reasons why I wouldn't be better off doing it in Pathfinder. The only reason to do such a thing would be if you were particularly attuned to the 4e mechanics and did not feel you or someone you could hire would be able to produce something different but equivalent in-house. Since you are so far afield of the 4e mainstream, publishing a unique setting reallys puts you in competition not only with 3.5 and Pathfinder, but D6, Runequest, Fudge, and the rest. If the setting itself is the selling point, every way in which your design is constrained by licensing is going to make it a worse product.

On the other hand, 4E has potentially a larger available market for a well made setting.

Radically different settings. They don't even need to feel like D&D, they just need to work within the 4e ruleset. I'm tired of WotC's philosophy of "everything must fit into each of our settings" way of making settings.

I best get cracking on my project then - I'm trying to do exactly this!

I don't get this. Every other post on this board is "No character stuff since it won't be supported by DDI." That should be a huge mallet to the head for anyone thinking about doing any kind of setting that requires crunch. Anyone seriously considering making a new setting should take to heart all the "But my players won't use it if it isn't in DDI." Imagine a setting like 3.0's Nyambe or Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. The whole point of the setting is use the local classes to give your game a new feel. If players aren't going to embrace the new fluff (requiring new crunch) the setting becomes less than it should be.

Similarly, new settings should have rules like "There are no arcane classes." But that goes against the 4e philosophy of allowing everything. I ask anyone who said they want new settings to state whether they thing their players would embrace new non-DDI classes/races in a new setting.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't get this. Every other post on this board is "No character stuff since it won't be supported by DDI." That should be a huge mallet to the head for anyone thinking about doing any kind of setting that requires crunch. Anyone seriously considering making a new setting should take to heart all the "But my players won't use it if it isn't in DDI." Imagine a setting like 3.0's Nyambe or Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. The whole point of the setting is use the local classes to give your game a new feel. If players aren't going to embrace the new fluff (requiring new crunch) the setting becomes less than it should be.

Similarly, new settings should have rules like "There are no arcane classes." But that goes against the 4e philosophy of allowing everything. I ask anyone who said they want new settings to state whether they thing their players would embrace new non-DDI classes/races in a new setting.

Its possible to take an existing paradigm and build a unique setting with a minimum of new crunch. Eberron is proof of that.

 

[pawsplay]

On the other hand, 4E has potentially a larger available market for a well made setting.

I don't think that's a very realistic view. There is a large market for a 4e-compatible setting that can be supported by the online tools. The market for a setting that cannot be supported by the tools is much, much smaller. The market for a setting that discards many 4e elements is smaller. The market for a setting that discards many 4e elements and requires crunch support that does not exist in the online tools is so small... it's probably smaller than the Pathfinder market.

The hypothetical buyer:
- Loves 4e crunch and prefers it to other options
- Is willing to move outside the implied 4e setting
- Does not feel new crunch needs to be supported on the computer
- Has heard of your game
- Knows other people who fit the above

I'm going to guess wildly and say you are talking about 1000-1500 people in North America.