Necromancer Games-update by Orcus

[Jack Colby]

All the WotC material leaves me cold, honestly. Adventures especially. The Goodman Games stuff is cool, and to have Necromancer making things for 4E would have been beautiful. 4E desperately needs some character and depth, and the 3rd party companies are the only chance to get it, apparently, based on WotC's idea of what makes a good game product.

 

[Jack99]

Well, I don't actually own any modules, or subscribe to DDI, but based on what I *HAVE* read (KotS, FR books) and seen on the WoTC site (excerpts from several modules plus map galleries), my own opinion is that when it comes to adventures, there is *very* little quality control at WoTC these days. In fact, most of those modules are based on the premise that exciting combats (especially with "interesting" use of terrain) = fun. No regard to good backstories or logical motivations for villains, and the maps (these days, apparently, consisting mostly of utilizing the dungeon tiles -- at least if the 'Kingdom of the Ghouls' and 'Nightwyrm Fortress' serve as proof) are so unexciting and bland that as a DM I wouldn't run the adventures without redrawing them all. In fact, I'm reminded of the arrogance/hubris during the TSR era, when they were churning out stuff with the philosophy that "anything we publish, they'll buy, because we're the only official publisher doing it".

To be frank, if the map galleries and excerpts are anything to judge these products by, I wouldn't run them even if they were completely free. I would not accept them even if I could get the *printed* copies for free (space on my book shelf is limited, after all). I'd rather run the 'Marco Volo'-series in all its "awesomeness", and that is saying a lot.

So, it's only my own opinion, but I honestly think that when we're talking about published adventures, most 3PPs for 3E had better quality control than WoTC these days.

What on earth does FR have to do with modules? Seriously, you are basing everything on 1 single adventure, which happens to be the worst they have published for 4e? Hardly makes sense. For what it is worth, I own all adventures published for 4e (wotc and 3pp) and while not all are perfect, there is definitely some really great stuff in there.

Of course you are entitled to any opinion that you wish to have, it just seems to me that you base it on very little.

 

[Treebore]

All the WotC material leaves me cold, honestly. Adventures especially. The Goodman Games stuff is cool, and to have Necromancer making things for 4E would have been beautiful. 4E desperately needs some character and depth, and the 3rd party companies are the only chance to get it, apparently, based on WotC's idea of what makes a good game product.

I have to say I really like Goodmans 4E modules. In fact I have liked them better than most of their 3E line. I find it strange to say, considering comments about 4E being weak on role play, but I have found the story a lot more substantive in their 4E modules.

I don't know, maybe because I run them using C&C instead of 4E some how makes the story "pop" more. Whatever the reason I have been much happier with Goodmans 4E mods.

I haven't bought any of WOTC mods, but that is because I have played through 2 of them and part of a third, and found them all very predictable. The only thing WOTC has done, adventure wise, that I liked, was the skill challenge in the last WW D&D Game Day, the one where we were going down the underground river on the raft.

I have been thinking of buying the new Ghoul module since it apparently has some kind of connection to the old Dungeon module Wolfgang did, but I am afraid it will be just as predictable and bland as the others have been.

 

[tomlib]

Revenue

I think this is an interesting topic beyond the ramifications of Wizards of the Coast (WotC) and Third Party Publishers (3PP). The question here, at least as I see it, relates to an open license versus a closed one.

In this case WotC has a product, 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. Are they better off allowing other people to produce and sell material for this product in addition to their own or are they better off keeping it all in house and forcing other companies to create their own systems?

At first glance, I think the latter (closed license) seems to be the winner. Why should WotC allow anyone else to sell product for their system which might well cut into their own sales?

However, upon deeper inspection I think (my opinion) that the former (open license) generates far more interest, more creativity, more product, better ideas, and a better overall 4th Edition experience for everyone. This better experience will drive increased sales for all parties. A worse experience will dampen all sales even if only one company is selling. A bigger share of a smaller market versus a smaller share of a bigger market argument.

Let's imagine WotC worked out an open license 18 months before releasing 4th Edition and that upon release dozens of companies and even individuals had product available. I think (my opinion) we wouldn't be seeing edition wars. I think the changeover would have been rapid and well received. (Personally I like many of the changes in 4th Edition particularly in regards to high level play).

I equate this to a Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica debate. I absolutely believe that an open system, with as great a range of contributers providing a wide array of ideas promotes the widest distribution of a product. I think (my opinion again) that 3PP help WotC tremendously by attracting an audience to a wide variety of product.

Another example might be the automobile market when going well the big boys make more money even though there are many smaller companies producing cars as well.

Finally, from a purely selfish respect, an open license provides me with a greater variety of material (some of it dreck to be certain) and that can only be to my benefit.

Anyway, happy gaming all.

Tom

 

[carmachu]

I found and picked up most of the "official" WotC modules for 3E/3.5E and the 4E ones released so far. So far none of them are particularly impressive, other than maybe Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.

Awhile ago I went through my friends' collections of 2E AD&D modules, and didn't find many which were particularly impressive.

Going back to the days of 1E AD&D, there were several impressive modules such as the giants-drow-demonweb series (ie. G1-2-3, D1-2-3, Q1)

To be fair, there are a couple other exceptional ones beyond that one. Red hand of Doom for example, is pretty widely known as quite good. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was pretty good.

Overall yes Wotc ones werent very good.

 

[Sunderstone]

To be fair, there are a couple other exceptional ones beyond that one. Red hand of Doom for example, is pretty widely known as quite good. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was pretty good.

Overall yes Wotc ones werent very good.

Egads! I have to agree with this. Red Hand of Doom, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk are about the only modules I really liked from Wizard.
Most of the great stuff came from Necro, Paizo, Goodman and to a lesser extent for me, GR. I think the eggheads at WotC realized this as well, which may have accounted for some parts of their GSL being so draconic (purely speculative on my part of course).

If I were to be interested in playing 4E, Id buy Goodman exclusively at this point, at least until Necro and Paizo jumped on.

 

[Primal]

What on earth does FR have to do with modules? Seriously, you are basing everything on 1 single adventure, which happens to be the worst they have published for 4e? Hardly makes sense. For what it is worth, I own all adventures published for 4e (wotc and 3pp) and while not all are perfect, there is definitely some really great stuff in there.

Of course you are entitled to any opinion that you wish to have, it just seems to me that you base it on very little.

By Mystra's Lost Spell, FRCG does have a couple of adventures in it, and I see them as part of the whole, i.e. official 4E adventures designed and published by WoTC staffers (I'm leaving Dungeon out, because I don't have a DDi subscription); otherwise I'm comparing the H/P/E-series to 3E adventures, and judging by the excerpts and maps these cannot hold a candle to their 3E counterparts (or even most adventures I've read from 3PPs). I haven't read any Goodman 4E stuff, but it's not hard to imagine that I would likely prefer them over KotS, Thunderspire et al. The only adventure I have heard good, overall positive comments about is King of the Trollhaunt Warrens, so that's probably an exception.

As for rulebooks, that's a different ball game; what I've read at my FLGS, it seems WoTC has succeeded in putting out books with solid, balanced and well-designed content.

(@PC & Mark: alright, that was a bit of a hyperbole, but it was meant to drive my point home... )

 

[Primal]

I found and picked up most of the "official" WotC modules for 3E/3.5E and the 4E ones released so far. So far none of them are particularly impressive, other than maybe Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.

Awhile ago I went through my friends' collections of 2E AD&D modules, and didn't find many which were particularly impressive.

Going back to the days of 1E AD&D, there were several impressive modules such as the giants-drow-demonweb series (ie. G1-2-3, D1-2-3, Q1)

I liked most FR adventures (the only one I didn't like was 'Mysteries of the Moonsea'), plus the first series of 3.0 modules (you can actually easily base a whole campaign around 'Speaker in Dreams' only). Then, the 'Expedition...'-series, Fortress of the Yuan-Ti, Barrow of the Forgotten King, Red Hand of Doom; all of these are superior in quality (again, in my opinion) to what WotC has published for 4E. And I liked a lot of 3PP stuff like the Goodman modules and Rappan Athuk.

 

[Windjammer]

This is just my own private theory, but in actuality Paizo has made some great effort to provide 4E content in their modules. Not 4E stat blocks, of course (these are pretty easy to pick up if you got the 4E MM1 and MM2), but modules that contain more than the occasional nod to 4E.

Just to mention two examples - and I recommend everyone to check on them in person when next leafing through these products in their FLGS:

"The Armageddon Echo" has people visit an Elven Town in the Shadowfell, and "End of Eternity" has the party visit the Elemental Chaos replete with Primordials (renamed "proteans") - the Pathfinder issue even dedicates a whole ecology article to them.*

That's just two individual instances, but for me these products fill a nichè. I love the 4E MMs and appreciate the ease of plugging 4E monsters into older modules. But 4E modules by WotC themselves are, as Primal put it, not that in terms of plot intricacy. For me, any 4E module you buy in the shop serves the same function as Dungeon Delve - you get some pretty exciting encounters which you can weave into an adventure of your own making. Or - and here I get back to Paizo - you could combine them with someone else's story-rich offering.**

The main issue, of course, is why you would want new or contemporary ("story-rich") modules at all when the past can serve. Well, that's true to be sure but, as I said, it IS refreshing to see a company put some good effort into making the new cosmology tick and bring home their exotic nature in a way that WotC' own products (MotP, P1, P2) continuously fall short of doing.


So here's my overall conclusion of the points I raised. To contribute highly valuable stuff for a 4E DM, a 3PP company doesn't need the GSL. While the GSL will help a 3PP product to get recognition, beyond that it's simply hampering. A 3PP product could well be more rewarding to a 4E DM if it is complementory and not supplanting of 4E product; that is, if it doesn't even attempt to include or create new 4E mechanics when WotC is far better suited to provided these and there's already aplenty thereof. That was my verdict on Kobold's Quarterly and is, in fact, my verdict for the 3PP product I've liked best in the last year. Leave the mechanics of exciting encounters and powers to WotC, and give us some story meat to put on these bones!

* There's a third instance, similar to these, but I leave it to others (familiar with the product in question, which I am not) to verify it: "Memory of Darkness" actually portrays a Feywild environment.

** See, I don't get people who say "Why should I buy 4E Kingdom of the Ghouls when I already got Dungeon 70?". These are two completely different but strictly complementory options, and putting them together on your table will create a terrific set of sessions.

 

[Ariosto]

Yeah, your right, "points of light" doesn't relate to 4E marketing at all.

Oh, the vision thing. It's a very good question, very direct, and I'm not going to answer it. I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them.