Necromancer Games-update by Orcus

[dm4hire]

Despite, on numerous occassions, Paizo saying they have no interest in 4e because the system doesn't support the type of stories they want to tell? They're more or less mentioned on several occassions that it's not necessarily the GLS but the system and that they have no people currently working for them that know the 4e system (strange since Wolfgang has published 4e material under his own banner but whatever.)

I think you missed the point of that section. Clark was referring to the fact that had everything gone smoothly Paizo would have continued to support WotC and embraced 4e. Unfortunately things didn't go smoothly and fortunately we have Pathfinder as a result.

So distributors fear a glut, but WoTC could start reprinting all editions? Uh... yeah, not seeing that happening. Now WoTC doing something more awesome like making an OGL for previous editions of the game and letting other people support it? That's more likely but still pie in the sky I believe.

If WotC embraced POD there would be no glut as only those interested in earlier editions would order and purchase the products. Whether done by WotC or by Lulu, doesn't make a difference as it would be strictly on demand.

Now we're getting back to glut and printing costs among other things. If Dragon and Dungeon go digital because WoTC wants to make them part of the DDI, I can't see how pushing people towards print products of niche products would be the way to go. And my god! The bitching! Imagine how much a AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook would cost off the line newly printed. People would be weeping in the streets that WoTC is doing things to their backside because that's not what it cost in 1984.

Actually POD costs are reasonable, especially given the size of 1e books or most of 2e. Cost could also be lowered by the availability of softcover alternatives.

That new editions come along for virtually all game systems and that most companies don't support the previous editions? Yeah, I think they got that one. (Notable exception is the guys doing Rolemaster with their Rolemaster Classic line. Thumbs up!)

This is a some what flawed view as most publishers try to stick close to the original design for the sole purpose of retaining customer loyalty. There are quite a few RPGs with revisions and new editions that require very little backward compatibility. Many of those that do made the proper decision to separate the new edition from the old edition to eliminate the necessity, i.e. WoD changed complete mythology.

Huge grain amigo. I love Necromancer products. Still convert some ToH beasties now and again for my 4e game. BUT, as you were so gun ho on supporting the latest edition, this whole post seems like it came from Bizzaro Clark. If from the get go you had been on this multiple edition frame, then it would make sense but unless I'm missing something, Necromancer Games isn't doing a Tome of Horrors OSRIC, not Swords and Wizardry, nor Castles and Crusades, etc... If YOU, Clark, feel that there is value in supporting all editions of D&D, step up to the plate man. Let's see those various systems for Tome of Horrors. Let's see you beat wizards at their own game.

Again I think Clark was implying that there are ways for WotC to fix a lot of the division forming within the community and gather back what has already been lost already. The real focus should be "D&D the game" and not "D&D the edition" which is what everyone has been shouting since 2e hit the streets way back then (heck even I just wanted TSR to edit and hopefully consolidate all the non-setting books and update the settings in 1e). If WotC brought back earlier editions via POD or even open sourced them, but then supported said product by creating edition neutral material I think they would see a huge resurgence, not just in revenue but in the hobby in general.

The effective stance would be to sell it like McD, saying "Have it your way." WotC could sell the core books for whatever the new edition is in store, but make the old editions available through POD for those who just aren't satisfied or don't want change.

 

[Badwe]

When the idea of only a 30-40% conversion rate from 3e to 4e gets tossed around, it's not a stretch to think that the fanbase is split quite a bit. Gaining enough new people to make up for that sort of fragmentation is the question, and I can only speculate if WotC is doing so.

and that's all you, or anyone posting regarding a fanbase split has, an idea. Nobody has real percentages, and pretending we do is a farce. All anyone has is their own personal experience and knowledge of other players. If I were to use my own experience, I could easily say 5% because i know a total of 2 people who are 3e holdouts out of 4 groups of 5-6 players playing home groups and going to multiple events with rooms full of people playing 4e LFR from RPGA.

I know this isn't the reality, I know there is likely a higher percentage of 3e holdouts, and at least another decent percentage (of total D&D players) who are 2e or 1e holdouts. Beyond that? I can say nothing. I can't tell you the magnitude to which the 3e percentage differs from the 4e, I couldn't even tell you which was higher. No amount of linking to WSJ top seller or amazon top seller book lists is going to prove it one way or the other, so how about we stop kidding ourselves into thinking it will? Wisdom is knowing what you don't know.

Now, all that aside, necromancer definitely has an uphill battle, as do any 3pp for 4e. Even with a GSL, 4e doesn't, as others have mentioned, let the 3rd parties into the most exclusive club, moreso than even publishing books: the Character Builder and compendium. No amount of legal compliance will create a scenario in which 3rd party publishers will be able to seamlessly integrate their items/feats/powers/etc. into the character builder or make them searchable on compendium, and that is a major hit. It means people fully dedicated to the 4e model are going to be struggling to integrate anything except published adventures into their games.

In this sense, WotC has been hostile to publishers not by their GSL (though that certainly left plenty of people dissapointed) but by building a better mousetrap. Of course, it's easy to design source books that work extremely well with your core rules when you significantly overhauled and redesigned those core rules. Still, I'd hardly call that malice towards 3pp. Also, I know I as a DM have embraced it because i can get rid of that sense of dread when a player brings me a sourcebook and says "can i play this new class?" and wonder what i'm getting myself into. I would say in that way WotC almost stole a concept from GURPS (in a _much_ more limited fashion) in that you can pretty easily use every single thing published, even from different settings and have it all add up and work.

All that being said, I would love to see 3pp succeed in 4e. I would like to see a multitude of options for me to have available and for many different takes on the new rules set to emerge. But as I outlined above... even without the GSL difficulties it wouldn't be easy. Hat's off to Goodman for being the most successful 4e 3pp.

 

[BryonD]

Saying that the base is split, doesn't that imply some sort of equality? I mean, if WotC lost 5% of it's customers due to 4e, you could hardly say that the fanbase is split, right?

Clearly my personal experience is not a good representation. But my experience is that it is far greater than 5%.

That is not to say that it is pure loss. Obviously 4E also gained a significant number of fans that did not play 3E. So on total number of players the lost 3E players will very much overstate the net fan base impact.

However, when we are specifically talking about comparing 3PP popularity from 3E to 4E, it isn't just total numbers that matter, but the people who make up those numbers and their gaming style that is important.

3E was built as a complex game. And it was also built in parallel with the OGL. I suspect the two were pretty much fully independent, but at a minimum the spirit of that type of gaming was at the forefront and the knowledge of this connection was present.

Of course there will be exceptions (and I think anyone who posts on ENWorld is to some extent an exception by definition), but the 4E fan base, taken as a collective, is less inclined to want more complications in their game than the 3E fan base, taken as a whole collective. 3PP products are often perceived as a complication.

The whole 3PP thing was on very thin ice to begin with for 4E because it is in conflict with the marketing philosophy of the game's very core.

Of course, WotC then vastly botched the GSL and figuring out which fatal blow killed the victim first may be impossible.

Its funny to me. A year ago (around the release) I predicted that Goodman would probably do alright because good and ready to run modules fit exactly with the easy-to-prep, simple-to-play game approach. But I didn't think other kinds of 3PP would resonate with the 4E fan base. Not enough for market viability.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

To be honest? Its too late. WAY too late. No one is goingto forget the GSL fiasco, or the trashing of everything old school. Yanking of PDF's with no notice?(granted they did have a recovery day, but their still gone as far as I know).

The base has fragmented. Its never coming back together again. I think Scott is great, but Scott isnt the company as a whole, and judging by its past actions, I dont think WotC wants, nor cares about anything but the new hotness.

No, I dont think Wizards understand the hobby history at all, judging by its past actions. And I dont think it will. Individials like Scott? Sure. The company? Not going to learn. Not unless its their bottom line that is in danger, and then maybe they might learn.

But ultimately the base is split, and not coming back.

Trashing of everything old school? Isn't that a bit extreme. As for the base being split, you say that as if it was a bad thing. I have been a fan of, and a player of the "stereotypical" D&D game since 2E. From where I was standing, I found the 3E/OGL revolution lacking. While 3E tried to be a toolbox, and tried to bring more under the banner of D&D than at any time before, the core D&D game was watered down. It was watered down by mechanics so complex and fragile they broke down if you stressed them too hard, and it was watered down by too many damn books from too many publishers. There is a different kind of fragmentation, and that is when your game spreads out so thin that the D&D ceases to really mean anything anymore.

Further, you say its doom and gloom. Prove me wrong. SHOW ME where you think Wotc's actions to date have shown any inclusion type items or words.

I'm betting you cant.

I never argued that 4E was inclusive. In fact, I'd say the opposite. What I would say would be that moving away from inclusion was the correct choice for the game.

When the idea of only a 30-40% conversion rate from 3e to 4e gets tossed around, it's not a stretch to think that the fanbase is split quite a bit. Gaining enough new people to make up for that sort of fragmentation is the question, and I can only speculate if WotC is doing so.

30-40% conversion rate? Are you being serious? After a little over a year, I'd say the conversion rate is about 75%-80%, with new and returning players more than making up the difference. Thats all speculation, but 30-40% is a bit ridiculous.

Again I think Clark was implying that there are ways for WotC to fix a lot of the division forming within the community and gather back what has already been lost already. The real focus should be "D&D the game" and not "D&D the edition" which is what everyone has been shouting since 2e hit the streets way back then (heck even I just wanted TSR to edit and hopefully consolidate all the non-setting books and update the settings in 1e). If WotC brought back earlier editions via POD or even open sourced them, but then supported said product by creating edition neutral material I think they would see a huge resurgence, not just in revenue but in the hobby in general.

The effective stance would be to sell it like McD, saying "Have it your way." WotC could sell the core books for whatever the new edition is in store, but make the old editions available through POD for those who just aren't satisfied or don't want change.

As I said before, this have it your way approach waters down the game. 3E/OGL was ambitious and inclusive to the point it was harming the core game. Running a stereotypical D&D game became a struggle.

 

[BryonD]

Deserves got nothin to do with it.

3e fans will get more 3pp support than 4e fans, because the OGL is better than the GSL.

Yes. And...

3e fans will get more 3pp support than 4e fans, because 3E fans buy 3PP product.

There has been some 4E 3PP. And far to few 4E fans bought it.

 

[BryonD]

I think Wizards needs to step back and say--lets not be the company of 4E, lets be the company of D&D. Lets embrace ALL players, not just 4E players.

IMO 4E is so very different than 3E that saying you can't support both is comparable to saying that Fantasy Flight can't support both Descent and Arkham Horror.

I realize that is not a perfect analogy. But the point is, they are very much different games.

I honestly respect the value that 4E brings to players. I wish there was more respect for what 3E brings to players. Yeah, I argue a lot. But if you look you will see I am almost always standing up for what 3E did better for my game.

I'd love to see the quick start, easy to DM D&D living happily alongside the detailed nuts and bolts D&D.

(And before someone accuses me of whining, yes, I have tons of awesome 3E stuff and Paizo rocks, so I'm a very happy person. But it could be even better. I could have all that and even more)

 

[Aberzanzorax]

This is sad news.

However you slice it, I see this as bad news for 4e.


In fact, though it is bad news for Necromancer, they still have Pathfinder, and also, as has been pointed out, it is not Clarke's or Bill's main job.

But for 4e? No Necromancer. No Green Ronin. No Malhavoc. No Paizo. No Privateer Press. No Paradigm Concepts. Hardly any Mongoose. Margaret Weiss's Dragonlance...nope. Arthaus/sword and sorcery? (I have every 3e ravenloft book.) Nope. Fantasy Flight games? Nope.

While there was a lot of schlock, the companies I mentioned above* didn't put out schlock. They were (and are) good, solid companies with good, solid products. A better, well timed GSL could have resulted in much more from all of them.
*(with the possible exception of some of the Mongoose stuff since they put out so much...and much was high quality)


I own several hundred 3e books. I own 4 4e books. I don't see that ratio changing much. The same sad phenomenon that led to the need for this thread is the reason for this.


Also, I'll agree with some others. The market is fragmented. It isn't coming back. WotC would have to become very customer friendly and basically either bend over backwards for inclusion or sell the IP/rights to another company to get it back at this point.


I respect you Clark, and I really respect Necromancer products, but I'll also agree with JoeGKushner in regard to the "every edition of D&D" versus 4e comments. Haven't you been stating for about a year or more now that Necromancer wants to support "the current edition of D&D"? That's the one part of what you said that doesn't make sense to me.

If Necro is a labor of love rather than a real need to make money, why not just make the products you want to make without concern about distributors? There are options for print on demand, distribution via the web (your site and Paizo's for instance), pdf only products, etc.

I guess I don't get why WotC should support every edition but Necro should only support the current one, and it was so important that the company waited until this point (when it has unfortunately become too late) to do so.

In any case, I don't mean to put the screws to you too much. I wish you and Necro the best. Also, and this is not a "Go Pathfinder, BOO 4e" comment: Why not capitalize on the good timing of the Pathfinder license? With enough support, distributors might see this as a new phenomenon ready to take off.

Good luck to you, and here's hoping that there's many more Necro products coming out soon.

 

[GVDammerung]

But ultimately the base is split, and not coming back.

Wonderful thread! And I think your comments very well considered. However, I will venture to disagree with the above quote, if you meant it to apply to more than 4e.

I agree the D&D audience has been split by 4e and 4e cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

5e may be able to do so, however.

2e left the D&D universe underwhelmed toward the end but 3e found a way to bring people back to the table. 5e might be able to do the same, by different or the same strategies. Or not.

I say, "Bring on 5e!" If nothing else, it will give Clark something to cheerlead for. I think he is on to something when he posits Wotc as "The D&D Company" but I think it would take a new edition to make that more than a slogan. Wotc handling of 4e has burned bridges, IMO, and such a tactic now would not be presently credible. A new edition would offer the possibility of a fresh start, particluarly if lessons from the 4e rollout are learned. So - 5EEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

 

[tomBitonti]

... snip ...
In this sense, WotC has been hostile to publishers not by their GSL (though that certainly left plenty of people dissapointed) but by building a better mousetrap.
... snip ...

I dunno. Building 3rd party extensibility into the DDI seems to me to much more of a better mousetrap than one which only gets input from WotC. Isn't that a key part of digital initiatives -- to harness the vast power of the online market?

 

[ggroy]

Wonderful thread! And I think your comments very well considered. However, I will venture to disagree with the above quote, if you meant it to apply to more than 4e.

I agree the D&D audience has been split by 4e and 4e cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

5e may be able to do so, however.

2e left the D&D universe underwhelmed toward the end but 3e found a way to bring people back to the table. 5e might be able to do the same, by different or the same strategies. Or not.

I say, "Bring on 5e!" If nothing else, it will give Clark something to cheerlead for. I think he is on to something when he posits Wotc as "The D&D Company" but I think it would take a new edition to make that more than a slogan. Wotc handling of 4e has burned bridges, IMO, and such a tactic now would not be presently credible. A new edition would offer the possibility of a fresh start, particluarly if lessons from the 4e rollout are learned. So - 5EEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Releasing a 5E D&D so soon, would be the equivalent of WotC "waving a white flag". It would be implicitly saying that 4E was a disaster.