d20 backlash??
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
mearls said:
Those are some great insights, Mike. Thanks. I've been thinking lately that the thing to do might be to get into Eberron--not becuase I necessarily like it but because WotC obviously put a lot of resources into its initial and continuing development, epsecially adventures (which for me is the key to whether I get into a d20 line of products).
EDIT: I wdoubt I'll do it, though, since I have too many great d20 products on my shelves that I plan to keep despite the fact that I'll never have the time or opportunity to run even the best of the best (In The belly of the Beast, included, thank you very much).
Hand of Evil said:
Thanks, Hand. This experience is mine as well. Of all my gaming friends, I am the only one who purchased alternate, non-WotC games. I had varying degress of success (or varying degrees of failure depending on perspective) in trying to bring these games to the table. One bought some 3rd party D&D d20 lines but never ran them. One got Wheel of Time and ran it for a while before it fell apart. Another still runs Star Wars infrequently. But, we ALL play D&D. Heck, it's the only game we can all agree to play as a baseline (and even then people's visions differ enough to create some issues). I call it the lowest common denominator, but it sure can be fun.
Gundark said:
That's why I'm sticking with it. I have little desire to play a plain vanilla D&D game right now, but I am having a lot of fun running The Shackled City adventures from Dungeon with Star Wars jedi, Omega World mutants, Judge Dredd judges, and aasimar paladins added into the game.
mossfoot
First Post
I'm a firm believer in "The Rules Should Fit The Setting". Chaosiums' Basic Role Playing system is perfect for Cthulhu... nothing else comes close I think. West End Games' d6 system suited Star Wars perfectly well.
That said, there are some gamers out there who get overwhelmed from learning a new system for each game. One friend of mine is math-lexic (can't visualize numbers whatsoever) and as a result ends up relying on others to crunch the numbers for her when we're in a rush. A consistant system like d20 is good in that regard. It's simple enough for her to enjoy and flexible enough to play with other games.
Granted I don't like d20 per se, but I do recognize its usefulness. Personally I just with there was a better system out there that could act as the "baseline" for a generic system. GURPS just doesn't do it for me, even the light system was too complicated for our group (ended up spending a full day in just one level of a dungeon because of it)
That said, there are some gamers out there who get overwhelmed from learning a new system for each game. One friend of mine is math-lexic (can't visualize numbers whatsoever) and as a result ends up relying on others to crunch the numbers for her when we're in a rush. A consistant system like d20 is good in that regard. It's simple enough for her to enjoy and flexible enough to play with other games.
Granted I don't like d20 per se, but I do recognize its usefulness. Personally I just with there was a better system out there that could act as the "baseline" for a generic system. GURPS just doesn't do it for me, even the light system was too complicated for our group (ended up spending a full day in just one level of a dungeon because of it)
My real point is that I've had a sort of personal d20 backlash. To use other vernacular, I've had a micro-market correction and am trying to make a macro-market correction.
Here's the story. I resisted d20 at first. I read about the changes in Dungeon before it launched and really didn't like what I saw in the first couple of d20 issues. After it had been out a few months, I borrowed a new PHB from friend who got one as a gift. I read it and liked it. I decided to run a 3.0 core game on weekdays to "save" my AD&D game for weekends (I had learned my lesson with AD&D splat books, so I didn't buy much extra stuff for 3.0). Ironically, I later converted my AD&D weekend game to 3.0. The d20 system really was a better system to me. Soon, I bought a lot of 3rd party stuff for other genres. I even went to GenCon. I loved it, but it was too much. I got to a point that I couldn't absorb any more information. I couldn't play all the great systems that had little or no adventure support. Worse, I couldn't convince my friends to continue playing the few other d20 games for which I do have modules. The best solution I could see was to focus on running the best, most portable elements that I could--see above for my description of my current game. So, I decided to sell off all the odler stuff that I was no longer using: a lot of AD&D and a lot of d20, too. I could probably stand to get rid of even more d20 books, but I'm holding for now (don't want to cut too deeply while trimming).
The backlash/correction is that I'm not buying. I haven't purchased anything this year, which is quite a change from just last year and a huge switch from the 2 years before that. The two purchases that I intend to make so far this year are very specific. Both are modules. One is on order (but difficult to get at my FLGS). The other is due in May (having just been pushed back a month). I'm not in a hurry to get either because I still have more than enough to keep me playing indefinitely. Even if used up my current supplies (or more likely lost it all to a natural disaster), I could play D&D & Star Wars indefinitely with the free adventures posted at WotC. I refuse to buy new rulesbooks or campaign settings unless they are strongly supported by published adventure modules. The only reason that I would even consider Eberron is because it has published adventures--and it's published by WotC, which means I see it at my FLGS and at the bookstores in the mall.
Anyway, that's how the market has affected me and how I'm trying to affect the market.
Here's the story. I resisted d20 at first. I read about the changes in Dungeon before it launched and really didn't like what I saw in the first couple of d20 issues. After it had been out a few months, I borrowed a new PHB from friend who got one as a gift. I read it and liked it. I decided to run a 3.0 core game on weekdays to "save" my AD&D game for weekends (I had learned my lesson with AD&D splat books, so I didn't buy much extra stuff for 3.0). Ironically, I later converted my AD&D weekend game to 3.0. The d20 system really was a better system to me. Soon, I bought a lot of 3rd party stuff for other genres. I even went to GenCon. I loved it, but it was too much. I got to a point that I couldn't absorb any more information. I couldn't play all the great systems that had little or no adventure support. Worse, I couldn't convince my friends to continue playing the few other d20 games for which I do have modules. The best solution I could see was to focus on running the best, most portable elements that I could--see above for my description of my current game. So, I decided to sell off all the odler stuff that I was no longer using: a lot of AD&D and a lot of d20, too. I could probably stand to get rid of even more d20 books, but I'm holding for now (don't want to cut too deeply while trimming).
The backlash/correction is that I'm not buying. I haven't purchased anything this year, which is quite a change from just last year and a huge switch from the 2 years before that. The two purchases that I intend to make so far this year are very specific. Both are modules. One is on order (but difficult to get at my FLGS). The other is due in May (having just been pushed back a month). I'm not in a hurry to get either because I still have more than enough to keep me playing indefinitely. Even if used up my current supplies (or more likely lost it all to a natural disaster), I could play D&D & Star Wars indefinitely with the free adventures posted at WotC. I refuse to buy new rulesbooks or campaign settings unless they are strongly supported by published adventure modules. The only reason that I would even consider Eberron is because it has published adventures--and it's published by WotC, which means I see it at my FLGS and at the bookstores in the mall.
Anyway, that's how the market has affected me and how I'm trying to affect the market.
Darrin Drader
Explorer
Right now D20 is exactly where Ryan Dancey originally predicted it would be by now. The only real exception is the sheer number of people who jumped into the market right away after D20s release. Now all these companies that embraced D20 initially are having problems because the market is too crowded.
As for what is successful in D20 land and why, I agree with others, that you have to look at what the demand is. Initially after D20 came out, adventures were all the rage. Then came a couple campaign settings with some new player oriented rules content. Shortly after that came the flood of player oriented rules supplements. Those sold well at first, largely because WotC was taking its time releasing supplements that covered those areas (mainly race books and class books). Then people either decided that the rules in those books weren't balanced correctly, or they hit their fill. Since players outnumber DMs, they make up the largest part of the market, so they are the ones publishers wanted to market their products to. However, this eventually waned since the average player probably does not need ten books that cover the various options for dwarves. As time went by, WotC continued releasing more of this type of material, and the demand for it from third party publishers diminished even more.
So now that the demand for player oriented books has largely gone away, the focus has been forced to shift back to DMs, who always need new material (although many of them are very creative people who would much rather create their own stuff ratehr than buy pregenerated material for their games). This means that publishers are back to making more settings, monsters, and adventures. Unfortunately those sell worse than the player oriented books, and despite the hard times the publishers are going through right now, there are still too many publishers in the industry for it to support them all.
I predict that in the next couple of years we'll see the print publishers shrink down to three to five. Most of them will be successful by supporting the brands that they have developed themselves. This means licensed stuff like Babylon 5 and Conan will probably continue to do OK, as will "Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel", and the best setting material out there like Midnight. I think Malhavoc Press will always have a place in the industry because the Monte/Mearls team is one of the best rules teams out there, as will Green Ronin for continuing to put out top notch material that is useful to DMs. I don't feel that there is a true D20 backlash as much as there is saturation. Publishers that can successfully diversify into other forms of print products could do alright, and any publisher that can manage to bring in brand new younger players will definitely do better than the rest.
As for other game systems, as a committed D20 designer, I don't buy too many of them, but it is nice to see some good playable rules light systems being developed and I wish them luck. So that's my 2 coppers. Take them for what they are.
As for what is successful in D20 land and why, I agree with others, that you have to look at what the demand is. Initially after D20 came out, adventures were all the rage. Then came a couple campaign settings with some new player oriented rules content. Shortly after that came the flood of player oriented rules supplements. Those sold well at first, largely because WotC was taking its time releasing supplements that covered those areas (mainly race books and class books). Then people either decided that the rules in those books weren't balanced correctly, or they hit their fill. Since players outnumber DMs, they make up the largest part of the market, so they are the ones publishers wanted to market their products to. However, this eventually waned since the average player probably does not need ten books that cover the various options for dwarves. As time went by, WotC continued releasing more of this type of material, and the demand for it from third party publishers diminished even more.
So now that the demand for player oriented books has largely gone away, the focus has been forced to shift back to DMs, who always need new material (although many of them are very creative people who would much rather create their own stuff ratehr than buy pregenerated material for their games). This means that publishers are back to making more settings, monsters, and adventures. Unfortunately those sell worse than the player oriented books, and despite the hard times the publishers are going through right now, there are still too many publishers in the industry for it to support them all.
I predict that in the next couple of years we'll see the print publishers shrink down to three to five. Most of them will be successful by supporting the brands that they have developed themselves. This means licensed stuff like Babylon 5 and Conan will probably continue to do OK, as will "Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel", and the best setting material out there like Midnight. I think Malhavoc Press will always have a place in the industry because the Monte/Mearls team is one of the best rules teams out there, as will Green Ronin for continuing to put out top notch material that is useful to DMs. I don't feel that there is a true D20 backlash as much as there is saturation. Publishers that can successfully diversify into other forms of print products could do alright, and any publisher that can manage to bring in brand new younger players will definitely do better than the rest.
As for other game systems, as a committed D20 designer, I don't buy too many of them, but it is nice to see some good playable rules light systems being developed and I wish them luck. So that's my 2 coppers. Take them for what they are.
Last edited:
Krieg
First Post
mossfoot said:
I can't help but wonder how much of this perception is based on historical reimaging. I was a longtime Runequest player who can remember being annoyed with the simplified version of BRP they used for CoC and had more than my shares of struggles with and houserules of the system during my years of playing.
While I am still a BRP and CoC fan I firmly believe that a lot of defacto "BRP & CoC are like peas & carrots" claims have more to nostalgia, social inertia & there being so few (if any) true alternatives to CoC in the marketplace.
Whisperfoot said:
I'd say that 6-10 is probably a more probable number...of course the bottom 15-25% will probably be companies struggling to get by & existing paycheck to paycheck (you know kinda like Chaosium?
).
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
Makes me wonder why WotC didn't order more printings of CoC d20.Thorin Stoutfoot said:
Ghostwind
First Post
I don't think it is a backlash as much as a market adjustment. For the first 3 years after the release of third edition and d20, the floodgates were wide open and everyone jumped in the pool because there was a vast feeding frenzy of gamers literally consuming what they could afford and then some. Once the rules became very familiar to the gamers that used d20 on a regular basis, the need for a constant flow of material (much of it being covered in triplicate) ebbed. Gamers could design their own material based on the books they already owned and used. In short, the need for certain content was not as great.
In today's world, gamers are buying more but also being more choosy about what they are spending those dollars on. They are after innovative, original, very cool and easy to utilize books. They also realize that they don't have to buy every new product that comes out like they did in 2000-2002. They are letting their brains dictate buying decisions and not their impluses. This is the environment that publishers are currently in. Gamers are smart and are using those brains to dicate what companies to support based upon their gaming needs, not wants.
My prediction is very few publishers will be able to release a product each month and stay in the game. Most will drop to a quarterly release schedule and focus on making better books that fit an unexplored/unexploited niche in gaming. Many will switch to pdf-only in an effort to remain in the publishing business despite lackluster print sales and a large debt. A few will simply go away and even less will make a public announcement declaring their departure. However, there will always be other companies that step up and fill those holes with new products that they think will sell better than a Wotc book. Such is the nature of the OGL and publishing.
In today's world, gamers are buying more but also being more choosy about what they are spending those dollars on. They are after innovative, original, very cool and easy to utilize books. They also realize that they don't have to buy every new product that comes out like they did in 2000-2002. They are letting their brains dictate buying decisions and not their impluses. This is the environment that publishers are currently in. Gamers are smart and are using those brains to dicate what companies to support based upon their gaming needs, not wants.
My prediction is very few publishers will be able to release a product each month and stay in the game. Most will drop to a quarterly release schedule and focus on making better books that fit an unexplored/unexploited niche in gaming. Many will switch to pdf-only in an effort to remain in the publishing business despite lackluster print sales and a large debt. A few will simply go away and even less will make a public announcement declaring their departure. However, there will always be other companies that step up and fill those holes with new products that they think will sell better than a Wotc book. Such is the nature of the OGL and publishing.
Similar Threads
