Necromancer Games-update by Orcus

[BryonD]

3E/OGL was ambitious and inclusive to the point it was harming the core game. Running a stereotypical D&D game became a struggle.

I disagree with this statement as much as is humanly possible.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

but "Have it your way" only applies to items on the menu. You're not going into McD and getting a skirt steak no matter how much you insist it's 'your way."

 

[dm4hire]

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.

I'm trying to understand how it would water down the game? If WotC sells current edition, in this case 4e, in stores only and older editions via POD there is no conflict? The current core material such as PHB, DMG, MM, and <insert campaign name> Player's Guide is available to the public and marketed to those who want the "new hotness" and still leaves older stuff available for those players who want it.

Having the actual campaign book neutral in respects to the mechanics allows the base product to appeal to not just new edition players but older edition players as well. Currently the logic of most players is, "why should I pay for a campaign book that has a large portion of material I don't want?" A neutral campaign suddenly opens that market up as WotC can sell not only the 4e Player's guide but could provide a guide for past editions as well as licensing it out for other game conversions.

As I mentioned, Green Ronin's Freeport is a perfect working example of a neutral campaign. Currently there are guides for 3e, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, C&C, to name a few and a 4e guide is supposedly in the works via license.

 

[carmachu]

I disagree with this statement as much as is humanly possible.

Agreed. There were many 3PP that kept me in the D&D fold rather than going elsewher in the gaming world. I know I cant be alone there.

 

[Qualidar]

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.

It's all anecdotal. Of the 19 people I game with regularly, 2 are in ongoing 4e games. Does that mean the conversion rate is only 10%?

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

I think that's nonsense.

If Green Ronin produced the Book of Fiends right out the gate and if Creature Catalog hit right out the gate alongside Tome of Horrors, those books would have sold.

Part of the 'real' problem is that WoTC, even with the OGL, still controlled the market by being the big dog. If it shakes, the fleas fall off. Those companies that conintue to do well do so on brand recognition, individual name recognition, and by getting away from WoTC d20 system and making their own OGL variants. Green Ronin mentioned dozens, if not hundreds of times, along with others, that when 3.5 came along, it killed their catalog sales.

I don't recall 3PP all branding together and vowing to fight 3.5 by sticking to the OGL that most closely resembled 3.0.

Instead they get it in the sack, puked, and picked up the pieces.

Those that had strong name recognition were able to weather the storm. Those that had strong name recognition and wanted to be more than just a 3PP saw the writing on the wall. If WoTC could do it once, they could do it again. (And they did with 4e.)

It's much more than... 'merely' certain styles of books not being a good fit for 4e in my opinion.

 

[Filcher]

I think that given the economy, and lack of non-Goodman 4E 3pp FLGS enthusiasm, and the lapse in time since the last Necromancer product, that getting a new Necro 4E product onto game store shelves and selling it, would be a full time job.

Clack and Co. have full time jobs. So they'd rather write stuff that will sell with less effort on the selling side.

There was a time when Necromancer products sold themselves. Now Clark & Co. have to select the niches where that is still true.

 

[JoeGKushner]

As I mentioned, Green Ronin's Freeport is a perfect working example of a neutral campaign. Currently there are guides for 3e, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, C&C, to name a few and a 4e guide is supposedly in the works via license.

But Green Ronin isn't doing it. This is important. They're not doing ANY generic books this year. This indicates to me that it's not a runaway success. This is probably more true of people who play several game systems. If you run C&C and D&D3e and D&D4e, how many of the mechanical sourcebooks are you going to buy?

The fact that Green Ronin hasn't continued making system neutral games to me, argues that it's not as profitible as making specific system supplements such as Mutants & Masterminds or A Game of Thrones.

 

[dm4hire]

Well if you look at it properly they have done a new True20 product and it's inclusion in Warriors & Warlocks for M&M is also a product placement. Green Ronin is still doing stuff for it, but the campaign is still neutral and therefore doesn't need them to continue. Basically they tossed out the book into the middle of the ring and said have at it. We're sticking with our products but anyone is welcome to take a shot at doing products for it. C&C and the forth coming 4e books shows that others are stepping up to the plate and taking a shot.

As for my McD analogy I think of it more as WotC is the current owners of the chain. It's up to them what stays on the menu and what comes off. Right now there are a lot of customers that want older stuff to come back onto the menu and they should take advantage of that, even if it would only be special orders.

 

[Jack99]

While I most certainly dont think its a 50-50 split, or even a 60-40 split, I highly doubt also its barely 5% either.....

Perhaps fragmented is a better word.

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.

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.

Just for the record, I do not think either that the "split" is 95-5. I was merely exaggerating in order to find out what was meant by "the fanbase is split", because it sounded to me as if it was an (ballpark) 50-50 split that was implied, which I thought was a bit odd.