Charles Ryan on Adventures

[Nikchick]

Please, tell me who did the napalming of the d20 fields, and who initially planted the seeds? This is more like sharecroppers refusing to rotate their crops and ruining their leasors lands.

WotC released 3.5 with so many incremental changes that all mastery of the previous system was out the window. The release of 3.5 forced every consumer to make the choice: upgrade or don't. That fractured the "d20 market" into people satisfied with 3.0 and people willing to update to 3.5; it made years worth of work "obsolete" and unappealing to those who updated to 3.5 and forced many publishers to make the jump to supporting the current rules set and selling to the 3.5 players (which was a subset of the total number of people previously purchasing 3.0 and substantially smaller). WotC's decision to revise the D&D rules in the way that they did was no small event for d20 publishers, even those who made the transition successfully.

I'm not willing to take the blame for "ruining" the lands of my supposed overlords. My company produces quality product in a responsible manner, and we have from the start. If we're to believe that the d20 "movement" has been at all good, that the strategy has been a success for WotC, then we must also recognize that WotC benefitted from the early support of their SRD/OGL/d20 plan by companies like mine. I refuse to be painted as some sort of serf who owes to WotC more than we've already paid back through our high quality support and our responsible business practices. I assert outright that we've earned the respect we have through our own hard work. If WotC's view from on high is that the broad D20 market is not doing what it should, and that "in general" D20 publishers are now competition rather than allies, I would hope that they could recognize the difference between companies who provide quality support and those who "choke the supply chain." I don't get that impression from Charles' comments.

As for the issue of adventures specifically, I find myself in agreement with PatrickLawinger's commments, so I won't beat a dead horse by repeating what's already been said.

 

[Uder]

WotC released 3.5 with so many incremental changes that all mastery of the previous system was out the window. The release of 3.5 forced every consumer to make the choice: upgrade or don't. That fractured the "d20 market" into people satisfied with 3.0 and people willing to update to 3.5; it made years worth of work "obsolete" and unappealing to those who updated to 3.5 and forced many publishers to make the jump to supporting the current rules set and selling to the 3.5 players (which was a subset of the total number of people previously purchasing 3.0 and substantially smaller). WotC's decision to revise the D&D rules in the way that they did was no small event for d20 publishers, even those who made the transition successfully.

If it was such a bad business decision, why the huge changes in M&M2.0?

 

[Crothian]

If it was such a bad business decision, why the huge changes in M&M2.0?

apples and oranges, M&M2 is not anywhere close to d20 in size and have so many companies dpeendant on that.

 

[Bagpuss]

Same thing on a smaller scale when you consider the number of "Superlink" PDF publications out there already.

 

[Crothian]

Same thing on a smaller scale when you consider the number of "Superlink" PDF publications out there already.

well, the big differnece I've seen is the number of complaints. A whole bunbchg when 3.5 came out and none when M&M2 came out. I also have to think that M&M2 is not going to cause the crash D&D 3.5 did.

 

[Storm Raven]

WotC released 3.5 with so many incremental changes that all mastery of the previous system was out the window. The release of 3.5 forced every consumer to make the choice: upgrade or don't. That fractured the "d20 market" into people satisfied with 3.0 and people willing to update to 3.5; it made years worth of work "obsolete" and unappealing to those who updated to 3.5 and forced many publishers to make the jump to supporting the current rules set and selling to the 3.5 players (which was a subset of the total number of people previously purchasing 3.0 and substantially smaller). WotC's decision to revise the D&D rules in the way that they did was no small event for d20 publishers, even those who made the transition successfully.

Please. Anyone who tells you that 3.0 material is useless when used with 3.5 is trying to sell you something. I switched to 3.5 pretty soon after it was released and I still use almost all of my 3.0 books, and still buy many products that were originally released in the 3.0 era (my gaming budget does not allow me to buy all books released all the time, so I often end up buying a title a year or two after it was initially released).

 

[Uder]

well, the big differnece I've seen is the number of complaints. A whole bunbchg when 3.5 came out and none when M&M2 came out. I also have to think that M&M2 is not going to cause the crash D&D 3.5 did.

Apples and oranges, M&M2 is not anywhere close to d20 in size and doesn't have so many consumers dependant on that.

 

[Crothian]

Apples and oranges, M&M2 is not anywhere close to d20 in size and doesn't have so many consumers dependant on that.

which is what I said....thanks for agreeing with me

 

[Uder]

which is what I said....thanks for agreeing with me

Hmm, and it was almost verbatim. Imagine that.

Where's that dang sarcasm tag?

 

[Pramas]

If it was such a bad business decision, why the huge changes in M&M2.0?

M&M2 is a full on new edition and was marketed as such. It is not a stealth new edition marketed as a revision. And of course we know that the new edition is a risk. Such things always are. If the M&M2 product line doesn't achieve everything we want though, I'm not going to blame it on the M&M Superlink publishers. Second Edition was our decision, just as 3.5 was WotC's.

Now just be clear, let me add that the current state of the d20 industry is not only due to 3.5. That was indeed a big factor but certainly there were others. The huge numbers of companies chasing the same money with hundreds of hundreds of products, for example, and the dubious quality of many releases. Those issues were of the d20 market's own making and must be accounted for as well.

As for who planted the d20 seeds, I can tell you precisely: Green Ronin, Atlas Games, and Swords & Sorcery Studios. These were the companies that embraced d20 when it was nothing but an unproven idea. These were the companies that took a financial risk to try something new. These are also companies that know something about the RPG business. There were perfectly good business reasons for Green Ronin to move away from modules as a primary focus going into 2002 and the hundreds of thousands of non-adventure books we've sold certainly bear them out.