Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Windjammer]

I think Mistwell is definitely on to something.

But I'd add that Clark may have figured out at one point the impossible odds of doing the 4E product he wanted to release under the GSL. I mean, just compare Goodman's output to Clark's plans. Goodman's DCCs stay extremely close to the type of product WotC produces for 4E - I'm not negating there being differences (how else to explain that people buy these modules but swear off WotC modules) but I'm saying they aren't large. Enter Peterson. Peterson wanted to re-mold 4E to fit his vision for what D&D ought to be, ought to offer, ought to deliver. Regardless of edition. If you read a post like this one (emphasis mine),

Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.

you'll see that Clark essentially wanted to re-build 4E from the ground up. This isn't idle speculation on my part - Clark really wanted to do this. Check out the "4E Classic" subforum on his website, subtitled "Discuss Necromancer's developing rules supplement designed to restore classic gameplay to 4E!".

"Classic 4E" was a failed design concept, because it became clear early on that

1. No way does the GSL accomodate this type of thing. Clark was engaging in wishful thinking informed by the glorious days of yesteryear - i.e. the OGL. The OGL was all about allowing publishers to put individual spins on the rules - e.g. cover new eras, tropes, under the d20 ruleset - the GSL is all about "play by our rules, play by them closely, or sod off!". In that light, I think the GSL's restrictive nature remains an important reason why Necromancer 4E never worked out.

2. Even if the GSL had made "Classic 4E" possible, the market would not have sustained it. On the aforementioned NG-subforum, the most frequent reactions(see also here) to Clark's product plan was along the line of either

(a) "Clark, I love WotC' 4E. If you publish your own rules system incompatible with the rules system I love and have heavily invested in, I'm not going to buy your product."

or

(b) "Ehm, sure, whatever. I only play Castles & Crusades anyway. I couldn't care less which rules version you publish your stuff for - when I see those bloated stat blocks, 3E or 4E or derivatives, my eyes just glaze over and I skip them."

In short, no one really wanted "Classic 4E" in the end. Not the fans, and not even Clark & team.

Seriously, you want to know what happened to Necromancer and why, "Classic 4E" is your answer.

And while we're at it, (a) is what broke the camel's back for Goodman Games' 4E output too. The impossibility to import GG's mechanical stuff - new feats, monsters, etc. - into the DDI means that people just don't use that material. They just don't. Which is precisely why GG has been actively looking into (supplementory rather than supplanting) alternatives for some time now.

 

[meomwt]

I'd be guessing that Necromancer Games won't be at GenCon this year, either...

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Well based on what I heard/saw at GaryCon I'd say Joe has some really exciting things in the works. He really seems to be having fun with his products.

I am trying to my best to attend GenCon this year. It will be my first time.

 

[Jack99]

I think Mistwell is definitely on to something.

But I'd add that Clark may have figured out at one point the impossible odds of doing the 4E product he wanted to release under the GSL. I mean, just compare Goodman's output to Clark's plans. Goodman's DCCs stay extremely close to the type of product WotC produces for 4E - I'm not negating there being differences (how else to explain that people buy these modules but swear off WotC modules) but I'm saying they aren't large. Enter Peterson. Peterson wanted to re-mold 4E to fit his vision for what D&D ought to be, ought to offer, ought to deliver. Regardless of edition. If you read a post like this one (emphasis mine),



you'll see that Clark essentially wanted to re-build 4E from the ground up. This isn't idle speculation on my part - Clark really wanted to do this. Check out the "4E Classic" subforum on his website, subtitled "Discuss Necromancer's developing rules supplement designed to restore classic gameplay to 4E!".

"Classic 4E" was a failed design concept, because it became clear early on that

1. No way does the GSL accomodate this type of thing. Clark was engaging in wishful thinking informed by the glorious days of yesteryear - i.e. the OGL. The OGL was all about allowing publishers to put individual spins on the rules - e.g. cover new eras, tropes, under the d20 ruleset - the GSL is all about "play by our rules, play by them closely, or sod off!". In that light, I think the GSL's restrictive nature remains an important reason why Necromancer 4E never worked out.

2. Even if the GSL had made "Classic 4E" possible, the market would not have sustained it. On the aforementioned NG-subforum, the most frequent reactions(see also here) to Clark's product plan was along the line of either

(a) "Clark, I love WotC' 4E. If you publish your own rules system incompatible with the rules system I love and have heavily invested in, I'm not going to buy your product."

or

(b) "Ehm, sure, whatever. I only play Castles & Crusades anyway. I couldn't care less which rules version you publish your stuff for - when I see those bloated stat blocks, 3E or 4E or derivatives, my eyes just glaze over and I skip them."

In short, no one really wanted "Classic 4E" in the end. Not the fans, and not even Clark & team.

Seriously, you want to know what happened to Necromancer and why, "Classic 4E" is your answer.

And while we're at it, (a) is what broke the camel's back for Goodman Games' 4E output too. The impossibility to import GG's mechanical stuff - new feats, monsters, etc. - into the DDI means that people just don't use that material. They just don't. Which is precisely why GG has been actively looking into (supplementory rather than supplanting) alternatives for some time now.

I think Clark's ideas changed a lot. The 4e Classic idea came very late to the table. At first, all the talk was about an Adventure Path (something with gnolls and snow) and some stand-alone adventures. While the GSL was certainly a problem, there was talk of doing it as a free product to get around the problem, but there were many other problems regarding the 4e Classic idea. For one, there was no direction in the discussions, so it was just a lot of very different people spitballing ideas left and right. Also, if you want to do this sort of thing, you better have a good, nay great grasp on the rules, with all due respect, it was not my impression that Clark had just that.

I still think that the 4e Classic was a great idea, and I also believe it is doable, at least mechanically, if not legally. But it takes more than 1 person setting up a forum and saying: What do you think, guys?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would have liked 0-level rules etc. as he announced. Clark was one of the people really supporting 4e. He was the one who really gave 4e and WotC a chance. I was a bit sad when he told us that he won´t support 4e.

I would have bought his products just for his behaviour here at those board when there were many people who just started nerdrage (Which I believe, had an actual negative impact on the rules we were presented.)

 

[ggroy]

And while we're at it, (a) is what broke the camel's back for Goodman Games' 4E output too. The impossibility to import GG's mechanical stuff - new feats, monsters, etc. - into the DDI means that people just don't use that material. They just don't.

Whether planned or by happenstance, the DDI character builder effectively has a hegemony over the market for 4E crunch, which has greatly limited the appeal of crunch heavy player character options books not produced by WotC.

An essentially useless 4E SRD (ie. with only the names of classes, abilities, etc ... and very little else), has so far prevented anybody from directly copying/cloning the 4E ruleset into a new game.

Even if WotC went back to using a very open license for future editions of D&D, a useful future DDI character builder program which still doesn't allow 3PP content, will probably still very much limit the appeal of most future non-module crunch heavy 3pp stuff like player character options books (ie. new feats, powers, paragon paths, etc ...). A useless SRD in the future, will most likely prevent something like a future Mutants & Masterminds from being directly created starting from the SRD.

 

[BryonD]

I agree with you. It's one of the reasons I had in mind when I said I think he backed off 4e for mostly non-GSL reasons.

He also said that he really had a personal desire to produce Tome of Horrors 4E. And when that was dropped the primary reason stated was that he couldn't get interest in it from printers or distributors.

It's perfectly fine for him to decide he likes 3e and wants to support it. I just wish he would say more of that, and less of the "It's the GSL's fault" stuff.

I don't think the elements are incompatible.
He also said he really wanted to be publishing for "the current edition of Dungeons and Dragons". When he was talking about "classic 4e" he would frequently throw in things like "(and Pathfinder)". But it was clear that 4E was his focus and he wanted to also support PF along the way.

I think you are very accurate in your assessment of why his focus has changed. But it changed from "4E (and Pathfinder)" to "Pathfinder". The GSL is the reason it is not "Pathfinder (and 4E)". The GSL is enough to push the second preference system off the table.

 

[Windjammer]

I think Clark's ideas changed a lot. The 4e Classic idea came very late to the table.

That is very true, but I think "Classic 4E" was the final step on Necromancer Games' way out of the 4E 3pp for a reason.

I still think that the 4e Classic was a great idea, and I also believe it is doable, at least mechanically, if not legally. But it takes more than 1 person setting up a forum and saying: What do you think, guys?

Absolutely. I remember a sunny afternoon when I got this PDF by a guy - let's call him Jason B. in the interest of anonymity - who'd haphazardly put together a couple of "ideas" on how to "improve" 3.5. Riddikulus!
Wanna know what happened to that PDF? Two or three of us read it, no one really put any effort into it improving it, and there it went to be never seen again. Also, and very obviously, the whole point of Jason's file was to say: "that's what it gonna be, folks - take it or leave it!". Jason's point was not, I repeat: was not, to drum up enthusiasm, support, and interest for a long term project.

If there's one thing we've learnt in the process, it's that such things never work. They just end up eating your time, money, and Ennie awards.

 

[Maggan]

If there's one thing we've learnt in the process, it's that such things never work. They just end up eating your time, money, and Ennie awards.

Yeah, it's a shame the hypothetical Jason didn't have e.g. the second largest rpg publisher in the world commission him to develop those ideas further, because that would have rocked.

/M

 

[Jack99]

That is very true, but I think "Classic 4E" was the final step on Necromancer Games' way out of the 4E 3pp for a reason.



Absolutely. I remember a sunny afternoon when I got this PDF by a guy - let's call him Jason B. in the interest of anonymity - who'd haphazardly put together a couple of "ideas" on how to "improve" 3.5. Riddikulus!
Wanna know what happened to that PDF? Two or three of us read it, no one really put any effort into it improving it, and there it went to be never seen again. Also, and very obviously, the whole point of Jason's file was to say: "that's what it gonna be, folks - take it or leave it!". Jason's point was not, I repeat: was not, to drum up enthusiasm, support, and interest for a long term project.

If there's one thing we've learnt in the process, it's that such things never work. They just end up eating your time, money, and Ennie awards.

Problem was, Clark and NG did not really have any ideas of note. They had a vague idea of making something called Classic 4e, which would be more oldschool D&D than 4e. Not quite the same as what Jason did

If Clark had thought this was doable and had presented some ideas, as well as a clear path deal with whatever things he wanted dealt with, I think things would (maybe) have looked differently. But he didn't

No biggie here though, I love my 4e, but I thought Classic 4e was a great idea (in concept at least) and it might have been something I would rather have played.

Of course, I might be completely wrong and the reason things never took off were legal reasons pertaining to the GSL...