Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.

[Jasperak]

Yup, you're certainly right. I never disagreed with that, and I think few would. You just chose to word your initial challenge as if there was literally no one on this site who got into the game another way. The danger of absolutes and all that

Yep, thats the danger of thinking that ones experience is the same for all.

I am amazed at how many people just went into a store, bought some books, gathered a group of friends and taught themselves how to roleplay. Especially with the number that I brought into the hobby. Where are all the people that were introduced to D&D by someone that already played? Do we as hobbyists actually suck at bringing new people into our games?

 

[Shroomy]

Its too bad for Clark and Necromancer fans who wanted them to produce 4e material, but in reality, this announcement has little effect on me. Also, come October 1st, I'm not exactly worried by a shortage of 3PP support for 4e; if there is a market, new companies will arise to take advantage of that market (like Red Brick).

BTW, I regularly visit 5 LGSs in two mid-sized cities. One doesn't stock any 3PP D&D materials, including Paizo (they basically gave away their remaining back issues of Dungeon and Dragon). The rest all stock a few copies of each Paizo release, and it seems that 1-2 of them sell while the rest end up on the shelf. I know for a fact that until I stopped buying Pathfinder modules, I was the only person regularly buying the one copy that owner of one particular store ordered. No other 3.5e materials seem to be regularly ordered and most of the backstock is being discounted at various rates. I really haven't paid attention to 4e sales and since they have so many identical copies, I can't tell if they are selling or not, though one store in particular seems to be a relatively enthusiastic booster.

 

[Jasperak]

The GSL isn't the largest "unmitigated disaster".

No, sirs, the largest unmitigated disaster is that you have a top-notch 3pp who wants to support the current version of D&D and cannot do so because of the frickin' license issues.

Some publishers want to stay 3e. Fine.

Some want to do PF. Fine.

Some want to do 4e by dodging the GSL. Sorta fine.

But here you have a guy who earnestly says he's all about 4e, wants to do it the "right" way in terms of licensing, and cannot do so.

That just sucks.

WP

My biggest fear is that WOTC puts out a product with Clark's name on it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

The GSL isn't the largest "unmitigated disaster".

No, sirs, the largest unmitigated disaster is that you have a top-notch 3pp who wants to support the current version of D&D and cannot do so because of the frickin' license issues.

Some publishers want to stay 3e. Fine.

Some want to do PF. Fine.

Some want to do 4e by dodging the GSL. Sorta fine.

But here you have a guy who earnestly says he's all about 4e, wants to do it the "right" way in terms of licensing, and cannot do so.

That just sucks.

WP

You know, I actually agree with you. I've always liked Clark because he brings a boyish enthusiasm for the game coupled with very reasoned and mature business acumen. Thanks to him, we got some awesome, awesome 3rd edition products - like Tome of Horrors. As if the first one wasn't amazing enough, he followed them up with two more, both of which were solid and very useful. We got Gary Gygax's previously released but mostly overlooked Metropolis. Also, the Wurst of Grimtooth's Traps, the Wilderlands, Mesopotamia (one of my personal favorites), The Gray Citadel, Rappan Athuk, Bard's Gate, and a whole bunch more.

Whatever happens, Clark and Necromancer Games, thanks for all the good stuff.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?

My friends and I had been playing HeroQuest when we were in sixth grade. Friend A found this book titled Rifts when we were out book shopping and showed it to us. We agreed the concept was cool (like HeroQuest but with Robots!!!) and tried it out.

That's how I came to Roleplaying.

 

[Glyfair]

Others on these boards have suggested that nobody really knows Paizo, unless they're regulars on the boards....

I'm sure that's usually intended as a simplification. The point is that the hardcore roleplayers (those who spend much of their time thinking about RPG games) are the ones most likely to know who Paizo is, those who aren't are very unlikely to know. The hardcore RPG fans are also the ones most likely to be drawn to ENWorld.

but really, whether it's EN World or somewhere else, I'm sure that a pretty large number of players follow up to some degree. It's just that many of them probably spend most of the time lurking. So I bet that there's a fair number of people who either know of Paizo, or of the products they make.

Paizo is in a pretty unique position in the 3rd party "D&D" companies. They had the license to Dragon/Dungeon/Polyhedron and that gave them a lot of exposure. However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that large swaths of D&D players ignored 3rd party d20 products (even before the glut). They just don't give a D&D product not produced by WotC a second look. It's a very significant part of the customer base.

However, I don't think anyone has really done any sort of professional research into that behavior (if so, it's WotC). I could argue that the gamers who buy a lot of 3rd party products are the ones who spend so much on RPGs that they make up a large majority of D&D/d20 product sales. I'm sure there is some truth to that, but it's just guesswork. I know some who spend large amounts of money only on 1st party products. It's very hard to know without the real research.

 

[Alzrius]

This is going a bit off-topic, but I also was self-taught in regards to D&D.

I vaguely recall, sometime back in the early 90's, seeing some kids at some sort of Christmas celebration get an RPG (Hero Quest, I think) and even though I never even talked to them, let alone gamed with them, my interest was peaked, and I mentioned it to my parents a few times (read: pestered them relentlessly). A few months later, for my birthday, my dad got me the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, and there was no going back for me.

 

[Glyfair]

All of Clark's optimism isn't worth much if WotC are happy with the situation as it stands.

I hear a lot of comments like this that seem to imply that WotC has a single point of view. I realize it's often just an intentional simplification (and likely is in Dr. Awkward's case, for example), but that attitude is out there. I believe that attitude is wrong.

Based on various comments, I personally feel that many at WotC aren't happy with the approach that was finally released. Clark keeps mentioning the Rouse and Linae, and I suspect that's because he feels they have his POV. The problem is that there are different concerns from different parts of the company.

Clearly the final GSL came out after a lot of wrangling and internal conflict within WotC. The fact that they went out of their way to invite the 3rd parties to a meeting to reassure they were part of the plan last GenCon shows a completely different approach than the final GSL has. The GSL was delayed for months after promises that it was almost there. There were even statements that they wanted free products out on Free RPG Day, and clearly they abandoned that plan.

That, to me, shows that everyone at WotC doesn't feel the same about the GSL. Clark is likely hoping that there will be changes after internal discussions continue.

I also suspect that much of his reticence is due to the vagueness of much of the license. That must drive the lawyer part of his mind crazy. I wouldn't be surprised if that issue isn't the primary reason he decided not to go with it, after wrestling with ways to get something out. It's very clear he does want to release 4E products, he just doesn't see the license as something that he can publish under.

 

[Glyfair]

This is going a bit off-topic, but I also was self-taught in regards to D&D..

Ah yes, I should mention I forked this thread to deal with this topic here. (Still getting used to this whole "thread forking" option).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

My point simplifies things assuming that if someone buys one they wont buy the other, which I actually don't agree with. Liking 4e does not preclude anyone from buying Pathfinder, nor the does the reverse. But it does mean that there may be two major systems that people have to buy for, and because of the GSL, 3pp are restricted in supporting both. 3pp like Necromancer have to choose which to support and because of the draconian nature of the GSL I'm not surprised that they are staying with 3.5e and its derivatives. It just means one may have to buy two systems to play with all of the available product out there.

This is probably true.

My whole point... It's market share that will determine the outcome of this GSL fiasco and you have WOTC and its lawyers on one side and Open Gaming on the other. Historically speaking T did do itself any favors by restricting its game and IP; in fact it was WOTC's opening up of 3e to everyone that saved D&D and made it the powerhouse it was. So long as the GSL is not Open Gaming, 3pp will not put any major support behind 4e. Heres to hoping that everyone has room for both.

This I'm not so sure about. Did the OGL save D&D? Not really. No one published under the OGL for quite some time. The D20 STL certainly saw lots of use under 3e and it wasn't until late 3e, 3.5ish that the OGL saw regular loving.

How much the STL or the OGL helped 3e is anyone's guess really. We can play hypotheticals all day long. Considering that 3pp never saw any large share of the D&D market, I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was the OGL that made 3e the powerhouse it was.

You could be right, I'm just not 100% convinced that you are.