Charles Ryan on Adventures

[Henry]

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.

Nice to put a figure on that, by the way.

(I'm still slightly miffed Glen Cook wouldn't let you guys do more than one supplement, darn it. )

 

[MerricB]

I'd far rather have 3.5e than still be with 3e.

To my eyes, the revisions lowered the complexity of the system significantly - I'm looking at monster creation.

 

[Yair]

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).

Irrelevant. 3.0 sales dropped significantly, the fact that they "shouldn't have" is irrelevant. GR needs to make money, not to be right or to sell *you* products. Publishers were hurt by the transition to 3.5, that's all Nickchick and Parmas are saying [IMNSHO].

I think people are catching flame here needlessly, picking on words and getting insulted and emotional over half-concieved and ill-formed sentences.
I give this thread another page or two tops before it spontanously combusts.

 

[Nikchick]

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).

I'm only reporting what I've heard from people: there are people in the market who don't want to make the conversions or look up the changes to use 3.0 books with 3.5 and consider it "obsolete" period. Of course, they're the same people who would really like it if we could adapt all of our 3.0 books for them, preferably for free.

 

[Uder]

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.

Semantics. A competitor did something that didn't help your business.

Hey, I've got an idea... maybe they should revise the STL to be as restrictive as Superlink. It sure would be healthier for WotC if they didn't have to worry about competing with sourcebooks, much like there was never a super-prison superlink supplement, or a gadgets superlink supplement.

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.

So you might almost say, "over the past few years most of the d20 publishers decided that it was better for their business to compete directly with us, and abandoned adventures in favor of sourcebooks of the sort we already make..."

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.

Sounds a lot more like sowing the seeds given to you by WotC.

 

[mearls]

A few observations:

* I think it's a grave mistake to attribute the downswing in d20 sales with 3.5. The information I've had access to hasn't shown a slide downward that corellated with that event.

Instead, WotC's switch to full color interiors and hard covers, along with the institution of the development team, made it more difficult for d20 companies to produce supplements that could compete with WotC.

By 2003, the adventure market had already dried up save for those few companies that specialize in them. Thus, d20 companies already leaned on supplements, and the changes at WotC hurt them. The gap between a d20 book and a WotC book became cavernous.

In other words, it's a lot harder to see a big difference between Sword & Fist and a book like Quintessential Fighter. Aside from the D&D logo on S&F's cover, the books have the same basic level of production values. But if you put QF next to Complete Fighter, the difference is obvious and enormous.

Furthermore, the introduction of the development team adds a level of refinement and error checking to WotC's RPG department that no other publisher can afford. The development process is by no means perfect, but it's a step forward. As the team gets better and our processes improve, WotC's advantage here will only widen.

* The interesting thing is, if you look at the print market today, everyone is doing licensed games, new games, or supplements for those titles. There really aren't many companies still doing books that you can add into an existing D&D campaign. At the very least, the raw volume of stuff has slowed tremendously. Most of what comes out now is d20-based games or licensed material.

* With all this in mind, most publishers have taken a beating over the past year.

IME, the d20 companies made a number of mistakes since 2000:

* Nobody established a coherent identity early on. In the beginning, the d20 companies were just companies that made D&D compatible adventures. Privateer did the best job of avoiding this, as the IK had a unique, vivid look and a clear identity.

* d20 companies imitate rather than innovate. We had the shift from adventures to supplements. We had the shift from original games to the flood of licenses. Malhavoc dodged this by publishing variant PHBs, new games that were also easy to loot for D&D rules expansions/improvements.

* These shifts pushed d20 companies further and further away from what was supposed to be the core strength of the license - the ability to produce material compatible with D&D. Goodman Games still does well with its DCC line, plus it has the advantage of doing really clever things with the nostalgia angle that help it stand out.

* d20 companies have never been able to work together. The simmering angers, jealousies, and petty rivalries help sour what could be useful and profitable business relationships. We saw the beginnings of this in WW's Sword and Sorcery imprint, and I think that provided a good model for how companies can leverage their individual strengths to produce a stronger whole.

* Finally, and this ties into the point above, none of the print companies understand or utilize the open source nature of the OGL and the d20 SRD. We haven't seen any steady, incremental improvements in the engine. Everyone just reinvents everything all the time. I think the PDF market has the print companies beat here.

 

[philreed]

* d20 companies have never been able to work together. The simmering angers, jealousies, and petty rivalries help sour what could be useful and profitable business relationships.

I don't think everyone falls into this trap. Personally I've had no problem working with other companies and will continue to do so. A win-win scenario that benefits both parties is what I frequently strive for and feel I've happily achieved a number of times.

 

[Nikchick]

* The interesting thing is, if you look at the print market today, everyone is doing licensed games, new games, or supplements for those titles. There really aren't many companies still doing books that you can add into an existing D&D campaign. At the very least, the raw volume of stuff has slowed tremendously. Most of what comes out now is d20-based games or licensed material.

Then what is Charles talking about? What you've described here seems to describe a marketplace where d20 publishers definitely ARE NOT competing with WotC and trying to do what they "do best" since WotC's not out there doing licensed games and supplements for such.

 

[MerricB]

* Nobody established a coherent identity early on. In the beginning, the d20 companies were just companies that made D&D compatible adventures. Privateer did the best job of avoiding this, as the IK had a unique, vivid look and a clear identity.

Generalisations are a killer, Mike. You should know that by now.

I think there were some clear identities formed in the beginning (I'm particularly looking at Necromancer Games here, but I think there were others); however, many companies later diversified outside these areas. Strangely, I think Malhavoc *didn't* create a clear identity through its products, but had one anyway: "Monte's Company". It only works for Monte Cook.

* These shifts pushed d20 companies further and further away from what was supposed to be the core strength of the license - the ability to produce material compatible with D&D. Goodman Games still does well with its DCC line, plus it has the advantage of doing really clever things with the nostalgia angle that help it stand out.

I agree with this, with some additions. I think that you can add that the d20-type games that aren't directly compatible with D&D can be put in the same category as any non-d20 game (e.g. Buffy, RIFTS, Warhammer FRP): they're competing games. Although the similarity in mechanics does reduce the entry requirements, they work on their own, rather than having a synergetic relationship with D&D.

Thus, they succeed almost purely on their own merits.

* d20 companies have never been able to work together. The simmering angers, jealousies, and petty rivalries help sour what could be useful and profitable business relationships. We saw the beginnings of this in WW's Sword and Sorcery imprint, and I think that provided a good model for how companies can leverage their individual strengths to produce a stronger whole.

Are you saying that rivalries helped bring down WW's Sword and Sorcery imprint? I've a feeling you may have mistyped.

* Finally, and this ties into the point above, none of the print companies understand or utilize the open source nature of the OGL and the d20 SRD. We haven't seen any steady, incremental improvements in the engine. Everyone just reinvents everything all the time. I think the PDF market has the print companies beat here.

I think this is almost entirely true - I seem to remember the Cry Havoc mass combat system being reprinted in an Advanced GMG or similar product - but it is mostly right. Added to the wonderful fact of "crippled OGC", I'm not sure the innovations can get out, anyway. I can think of a few early Malhavoc products where much of the material was (allegedly) closed content. (I haven't been looking at later releases so much).

Cheers!

 

[Arnwyn]

AFAIC, I don't care what Charles Ryan said on his company's messageboards. He could have talked about "poo-pooing on the enemy" [not a real quote] for all I care.

All I care about is getting new adventures, and adventures coming from WotC is fine and dandy for me (especially in this day and age of piss-poor distribution in the RPG business).