Eric Noah's Info

[Mark CMG]

I'm thinking we're going to see new products along the lines of -

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a

- packaged with the appropriate miniatures and broken out by ELs or CRs. Very modular, smaller packages that have a component that appeals to collectors. As they get a better picture which ELs and CRs are being most used, they can focus on churning them out. Larger packages would put strings of such encounter packages together. They can handle the core books and collectable stuff themselves and license out the stuff that doesn't move in great volume, the niche stuff that 3.x third party pubs have been doing through this edition.

Anyway, that's my guess at one possible scenario of what WotC might do with the future of D&D.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I need clarification on this point. Didn't WotC remove a number of monsters from the OGL around the time they released 3.5? The yuan-Ti, beholder, and a few others they claimed were trade dressings?

My understanding is that those monster names were never released as open game content. So they weren't "removed" they were just never "opened." And now they are explicitly claimed as "product identity."

How does that jive with them not being able to change the OGL?

They *can* change the OGL and release an updated version (and have done so), but no one is obligated to use the updated version. So even if they produced a wildly restrictive OGL 2.0, no one would have to use it.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Don't get your breeches in a bind , this was the obvious move for Hasbro. Megacorp$ operate this way.

i am just glad the RPG end will be sold off, not vaulted like most valuable properties wind up.

i misunderstud i guess. I thought sell off was a way of saying get rid of or stop, not literaly sell that portion of the company. if they sell it to someone who will love it, then that makes me hopefull. if they lock it up though i will be ok with that as well. they cant take my imagination.

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, that was the "Gentleman's Agreement." As I recall - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - some of the critters WotC eventually made closed content were used by some publishers. They didn't have to pull the products that had been produced under the "Gentleman's Agreement," but once the OGL and the SRD were finalized, those monsters could no longer be used.

I'm not certain, but I seem to recall that Unveiled Masters and Slayers Guide to Yuan-Ti both came out AFTER the Gentleman's Agreement was pulled. WotC allowed the publishers to have a highly limited license to use those monsters as non-OGC.

I'm pretty sure at least. I know Unveiled Masters makes a big point of saying that Mind Flayers are NOT OGC.

 

[Snapdragyn]

And it's a lot less attractive to pilfer a $12.95 book over the internet -- especially if the PDF version of that same book was availablef for $5.

I truly believe you fail to grasp the 'napster' mindset here. Music can be purchased for download for $1 a song, but people still download illegally. Why, then, would you think that someone inclined to illegal downloads would pay $5 for a PDF?

The point is not how much it costs, nor how the legal cost compares to some perceived 'risk'; the point is that there are people who truly feel entitled to take any intellectual property they can get their greedy virtual hands on.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No doubt. I fully expect WotC's roll out of 4e to mirror the job they did with 3e. That was a year of snippets in Dragon magazine. And IIRC, the reason so many people switched gears from 3rd edition haters (you'll never make me spend money again!!!) to 3e lovers (I bought 20 copies of the PHB. How many did you buy?) was that WotC listened to their audience. I expect the same with 4th edition.

And who knows. It might even be fun. Lord knows 3.5 isn't (for my circle of gamers anyway).

Why would it not be true for 3.5 but be true for 4E?

 

[el_skootro]

Despite his insistence that they're simply to generate discussion, Mike Mearls' recent website articles on developing some classic critters is one of those signs, I believe.
QUOTE]

Also check out Mearls' livejournal. He seems to be thinking about new ways to take rpgs ... 4E ways?

El Skootro

 

[blargney the second]

I'm really curious to see which sacred cows keep on mooing, and which ones become hamburger.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm really curious to see which sacred cows keep on mooing, and which ones become hamburger.

I'll have a two sets of numbers for ability scores sandwich, with a side of hit point rings, please.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I truly believe you fail to grasp the 'napster' mindset here. Music can be purchased for download for $1 a song, but people still download illegally. Why, then, would you think that someone inclined to illegal downloads would pay $5 for a PDF?

The point is not how much it costs, nor how the legal cost compares to some perceived 'risk'; the point is that there are people who truly feel entitled to take any intellectual property they can get their greedy virtual hands on.

Yeah, I've met that type before, but they tend to have a history of not using any of the stuff they take, because they're so obsessed with the taking. However, I don't think they're a majority, even among the high-school-to-college crowd.

In my game group, some people are just cheap -- unless they know they're going to use the big awesome book, they opt to download it, and maybe print out the one page with the feat they want.(Others have bought $200+ in books just because of my game, so it's definitely not true for everyone) I've had to institute a policy of "if you want to use it at the table, somebody in the group better own a copy". And while I don't condone copyright infringement, particularly for a company I want to see stick around for many years to come, the players do often have a point -- is $35 really a fair price for the two feats they're going to use? Specific, reasonably-priced player option books are probably the way to go.