Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[AllisterH]

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.

So you're basiucally arguing that WOTC should be happy that giving up basically control of its house system should be seen as a positive when it does NOT lead to an increase in their bottom line?

Mutants and Masterminds is widely lauded but at the same time, how does MnM help WOTC sell more PHBs et al.

Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.

 

[Storm Raven]

Mutants and Masterminds is widely lauded but at the same time, how does MnM help WOTC sell more PHBs et al.

Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.

Having a risky option produced by someone else that turned out to be a large hit provides more people using the d20 engine as their gaming system of choice, tying them to WotC's larger overall product line. For every M&M, there were numerous risky products that flopped, and WotC didn't have to foot the bill for any of those. Thus, the market is expanded using a system that WotC produces that therefore becomes the industry standard, and WotC has to invest no actual capital in doing so.

 

[AllisterH]

Having a risky option produced by someone else that turned out to be a large hit provides more people using the d20 engine as their gaming system of choice, tying them to WotC's larger overall product line. For every M&M, there were numerous risky products that flopped, and WotC didn't have to foot the bill for any of those. Thus, the market is expanded using a system that WotC produces that therefore becomes the industry standard, and WotC has to invest no actual capital in doing so.

But that's the thing...D&D was ALREADY the standard in the RPG marketplace. Even during the dark days before WOTC's buying TSR, the D&D game (and engine) ate up the majority of the market.

Even white wolf I dont think in its heyday came close to dislodging D&D at its lowest ebb...If this had been WHITE WOLF that came up with the OGL, I think it would be a brilliant way to increase market share to BECOME #1.

I *GET* the concept of the vision of Ryan D. That WOTC would focus on the high end moneymakers like the rules books and that others would benefit from producing adventures et al.

I'm just skeptical that say d20 Conan does more for WOTC than say GURPS Conan.

 

[ggroy]

While the OGL is being used for other games, it is not being used for major releases. RuneQuest and Traveller are probably the biggest examples

Mongoose Runequest 1 (MRQ1) had an SRD that was OGL.

Main Page - MRQWiki

 

[Wicht]

So you're basiucally arguing that WOTC should be happy that giving up basically control of its house system should be seen as a positive when it does NOT lead to an increase in their bottom line?

Mutants and Masterminds is widely lauded but at the same time, how does MnM help WOTC sell more PHBs et al.

Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.

No, I am arguing that those who look at it as a potential loss are missing the big picture.

Firstly, WotC did not give up control of Dungeons and Dragons, they simply allowed other people to build upon their idea.

Secondly, how do you know it did not increase the bottom line? The more people brought into RPGs the more people who are going to eventually give the standard a try. Communities do not grow by being rigid and divided. They grow by people working together. It is long term detrimental to consider the community a finite pie. The OGL recognized this fact and encouraged community growth. This site is a testament to that fact. It grew as a community when we all considered each other as gamers, not as system competitors. An open community grows because it is firstly vibrant and secondly because it is a welcoming place by its very nature.

I would also like to point out that WotC did not benefit as it should have from the OGL largely because they did not use it. Sure they released stuff to others but they never really started using what others created, which they should have. Paizo on the other hand cheerfully plunders ideas from everywhere and encourages others to plunder their ideas; which is how the OGL should be used and is how I think more and more it is being used; and rightfully so.

 

[carmachu]

Remember, again, the OGL was supposedly to be MUTUALLY beneficial...Seeing a lot of good things for OTHERS, not so much for the people who actually gave up most of the control.

The problem with that is, OGL had the ability to also include ideas from a variety of places. Similar now to what Pathfinder is doing by incorperating OGL items in(for example, several ToH monsters in the AP's). WotC never ever seemed to do so, so any benefit they might have had was wasted on their part.

 

[Steel_Wind]

No, I am arguing that those who look at it as a potential loss are missing the big picture.

Firstly, WotC did not give up control of Dungeons and Dragons, they simply allowed other people to build upon their idea.

I don't think the OGL was a falure at all. D&D 3.xx when it was released was the sequel to a failing game from a failed company. It's easy to see success after the fact. Truth is, the matter was in doubt. The fact that it seems so obvious that 3.xx would succeed in hindsight speaks volumes of praise for Adkinson and Dancey, and the designs of Cook, Williams and Tweet.

So I think the OGL was a great success and succeeded in reinvigorating an entire industry.

I would take exception on one point, however. You need to take a longer view of the OGL and realize that it's not over. Because it certainly isn't. While WotC has moved on, the OGL remains -- and Pathfinder has now grown to be the second biggest RPG in the market, cloaked in the guise of being every bit as legitimate a version of D&D as that produced by WotC, and perhaps more so.

Moreover, Pathfinder is created by those who have every bit as much of a claim to be the spritual successors to the creator's of 3.xx (indeed, more so, to be blunt) -- and perhaps that of EGG and Arneson, too.

I am sure that Dancey never dreamed that legitimacy and goodwill to permit another company to make a bid for being the "real" D&D would pass under the OGL. And in fairness, I suppose it did not - in and of itself. But when it was combined with a legitimacy that passed to Paizo after its excellent stewardship of Dungeon and Dragon magazine, together with some significant changes to the D&D core mechanic with the release of 4E?

I don't think anybody ever saw that schism coming, let alone that successive 3rd companies would then seize upon the OGL as a basis for now supporting a direct competitor to D&D in the marketplace. So as for "not giving up control of D&D"? I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement, given how matters have turned out.

 

[Wicht]

I do take a long view of the OGL and recognize its not over. Reread my post and notice again my mention of Paizo as using the OGL right. Furthermore, I just had my an OGL book published (see the sig) so I am very much aware its a going thing.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Mongoose Runequest 1 (MRQ1) had an SRD that was OGL.

Main Page - MRQWiki

You may have misread what I said. RQ and Traveller both have OGL licenses created. I wasn't saying they were the biggest "name" examples of those that are using the OGL

That is not correct. What Steve had designed was a city setting. Gold Rush Games was originally supposed to publish it for the Hero System but it never happened.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I will say that some of my criticism of the OGL has been echoed by you. I have no problem with OGL per se (I think the license has pros and cons), but I think you represent the more pragmatic side of game developers. I was also inspired by your posts back in 2008 of the OGL.

Ex-Teenage Rebel: Debating the OGL

Ex-Teenage Rebel: Picking the Right Weapon



And steering this back to Necromancer, this is why Green Ronin is still publishing, because as a smart move you were already trying to form your own niches and not be dependent solely on a license or compatibility with D&D. M&M is a stand-alone product with it's own target audience, True20 is different from standard D&D, and you also have games that aren't using the OGL.

Necromancer was way too dependent on the D&D teat. They mostly focused on adventure modules. One of their most successful products was Tome of Horrors, but that was very dependent on past work of TSR (specifically Gygax and the FF contributors). Other publishers found ways to diversify. But if your output is solely dependent on an existing product, you are at risk of being marginalized if the primary producer changes strategies.

You would argue that Mearls would have been hired by WotC regardless of his OGL work. I would argue that you couldn't prove it one way or another because the reality is that Mearls did OGL work and was noticed because of it. "What ifs" are all very well for fiction but have no real value in determining actual history.

I'm going by past precedence. A lot of the big name designers came from their prior work, not because of the specific system used. Two major cases in point: Warren Spector came to TSR after doing some kick-ass design work for Steve Jackson Games and others. Monte Cook came to TSR after a lot of work on Rolemaster.

And if you, as you say, can't prove it "one way or the other", why do people constantly bring up that the OGL is what "created" Mike Mearls?! If my view is suspect, isn't the opposite the same? Past precedent even shows that it's not the system used that matters, but the skill of the designer.

I'm just trying to make sure critical thinking is applied. There's a lot of talk about the OGL, but I think a lot of its proponents are looking at it from--for lack of a better term--a "faith-based" approach. They see it as a movement or the "future", rather than just a license. I'm not sure it's going to be the "approved new paradigm" of game publishing.

 

[carmachu]

And if you, as you say, can't prove it "one way or the other", why do people constantly bring up that the OGL is what "created" Mike Mearls?! If my view is suspect, isn't the opposite the same? Past precedent even shows that it's not the system used that matters, but the skill of the designer.

Its not just the skill, but what they created. Mearls gets brought up because of some past products, most notably Iron Heros, which seems like a fore runner to what became 4e.