Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Haffrung Helleyes]

DDI and the GSL

It seems to me that Hasbro wanted a more dominant role in the 4E market than they had with 3E, so they tried to use licensing (IE the GSL) to enforce a more marginal position supporting 4E, combined with an abandonment of 3E, on third parties.

The funny thing is, having the DDI alone would have been sufficient to let Hasbro meet its first goal. And with a lot less negative PR.

Think what would have happened to a 3rd party company that signed the GSL.

They would have been forbidden for producing OGL content. In addition, their 4E content wouldn't be allowed on the DDI, which , because Hasbro did such a great job on the DDI , would mean that DMs would be reluctant to buy it. Those two factors combined would, in my opinion, be pretty much a death sentence.

Ken

 

[xechnao]

snip

If 4e were OGL wouldn't a 3pp be able to build applications like the ones of DDI?

 

[Blackbrrd]

Even the top 4E 3pp module producer (Goodman) has been on a slower release schedule, compared to their 3.5E heydays (ie. Dungeon Crawl Classics).

A conspiracy theorist could argue that the 4E 3pp market is no longer viable, even for the top dog.

I don't think the success of Goodman Games 4e modules has anything to do with anything but the quality of the modules. I have browsed a few (5-6) of them and they were an uninspiring lot in my opinion.

The only 4e modules I have seen that aren't dungeon crawls or designed as a dungeon crawl would be is from the WotBS campaign. I am running WotBS, but I have time for one more campaign with a partially* different group and I would love something to run without too much prep time.

(I ran parts of the first module series from Wizards and parts of Scales of War. They were OK, but I would like something but a dungeon crawl. It's uninspiring and dungeon crawls got killed for me after running 11 levels of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in dnd 3.0)

*Some of the players are in both groups.

 

[AllisterH]

Modules or niche stuff that likely wouldn't sell as well as desired for them, yes.

Which, if you remember, was how the original OGL was sold to the brass by Ryan D.

It would be a win win for everyone...apparently in WOTC's eyes, it became a win for everyone ELSE....

 

[Wicht]

It would be a win win for everyone...apparently in WOTC's eyes, it became a win for everyone ELSE....

It is unfortunately true that many people view the gains of others as indicative of a loss on their part. Happily there are still companies out there in the RPG community that are glad to see others supporting them and encourage the growth of competition, veiwing the gaming community as just that: a community. And communities thrive and grow best when those within are willing to nurture, support and encourage others in that same community.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

If 4e were OGL wouldn't a 3pp be able to build applications like the ones of DDI?

In my opinion (and I am a software developer, but not a web developer), none of the 3pp companies could pull off something like the DDI. They lack the in-house programming skills to pull it off, and the money to outsource it.

Keep in mind that the DDI followed several failed attempts on the part of WoTC to pull off this sort of thing. It's a very difficult project to attempt.

Ken

 

[JohnRTroy]

The OGL part is, I think, really overrated in making the determination.

First of all, considering all the changes in the game system, I think that has more of an effect on whether or not players have chosen the game. If you're choosing to play a game solely on how it is licensed, I think that's a minority viewpoint and kind of missing the point of the game--to have fun. The OGL or lack of it does not affect my ability to read, play, or create for the game. The only thing it does is allow me freedom to publish commercially.

I have a feeling some of these larger publishers might have looked at the game system and said "no", just because it changed or it invalidated their prior stuff. It sounds like Bill Webb might have been one of them, though I am not certain of that. I think it would be very hard for Necromancer Games to do a "1e feel" style of publishing under the new rules, since the new rules basically change a lot of the familiar paradigms.

Secondly, I find the failure of the OGL ironic in the way Ryan actually promoted one element of it. He had said that it protected D&D because if the company would never radically change D&D because if they did, the public would likely reject them and go with the people who preserved the culture. Some of that did happen, but it was so minor it proved Ryan misjudged the audience and/or the power of the brand or the official channel.

 

[JohnRTroy]

In my opinion (and I am a software developer, but not a web developer), none of the 3pp companies could pull off something like the DDI. They lack the in-house programming skills to pull it off, and the money to outsource it.

Keep in mind that the DDI followed several failed attempts on the part of WoTC to pull off this sort of thing. It's a very difficult project to attempt.

Ken

Agreed. Software development is hard work, and can be prone to many challenges--missing deadlines, bugs, etc. The Tabletop game design has a slim fraction of the money available to the computer game industry or the software development industry.

If you don't have an in-house development staff, you are going to pay high contractor fees. If you try to outsource to the cheapest country, you are likely to find a lot of problems unless you hire some expensive managers who can really create a functional specification that is detailed in an immense way. The language barrier prevents you from depending on the software developers to "fill in the gaps", leading to misunderstandings. (Sometimes a programmer can double as an analyst, because in many cases people don't know how to communicate all of their needs to the developers in an efficient way).

I think only WoTC could even think of affording an in-house staff.

 

[Wicht]

The OGL part is, I think, really overrated in making the determination.

First of all, considering all the changes in the game system, I think that has more of an effect on whether or not players have chosen the game. If you're choosing to play a game solely on how it is licensed, I think that's a minority viewpoint and kind of missing the point of the game--to have fun. The OGL or lack of it does not affect my ability to read, play, or create for the game. The only thing it does is allow me freedom to publish commercially.

I think you do a disservice to the affect of the OGL. Open sharing among creative people fosters creativity. By having access to a plethora of other people's work I am more inspired to create myself, not less.

I also think you underestimate the number of people that appreciate the OGL. It is always dangerous to assume that those that disagree with your viewpoint are a fringe minority. I recognize there are plenty of people that couldn't care less about the OGL, but there are plenty of us who really like it as well.

 

[malraux]

In my opinion (and I am a software developer, but not a web developer), none of the 3pp companies could pull off something like the DDI. They lack the in-house programming skills to pull it off, and the money to outsource it.

Keep in mind that the DDI followed several failed attempts on the part of WoTC to pull off this sort of thing. It's a very difficult project to attempt.

Ken

I suspect that with a bounded set of material, you could get a decent character program. The reasons the 3e ones sucked for the most part was dealing with the constant influx of new classes, spell, and items.