Necromancer Games-update by Orcus

[Primal]

Also, and this is just my personal opinion of course, but many might share it, the stuff that WotC produces is just head and shoulders above what they produced for 3.x. Sure, there is some debate regarding the forgotten realms campaign stuff, but the rest has been very well received. Dragon is about a 100 times more balanced and useful (the crunch anyway) than before. All in all, maybe there is just less need of 3PP's than before.

Could they improve certain areas? Yes indeed, not everything is perfect. But it's definitely far better than during the last edition, IMO, YMMV, ETC.

Cheers

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.

 

[Piratecat]

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.

Spoken as a man who never judged the early years of the ENnies.

 

[GVDammerung]

If indeed WotC is threatened by the amount of sales generated by all other d20 3pp in aggregate, then they are in serious trouble.

As in, "I'm going to eat these scraps of gristle myself because if I give them to the dog, I will starve," kind of trouble.

The "threat" is not financial, I think. It is brand oriented. The OGL left Wotc in less than full control of their brand. From that flows the potential for harm to the brand and only then to harm to the bottom line coming from harm to the brand.

 

[GVDammerung]

The problem is sir, that one only has to look at their actions and the results. Maybe it wasnt intential, maybe it was. But they cut the staff working on the GSL, delayed it for a while with the revisions and arent exactly jumping up and down to fix the situations.

Scott is a great person from your words, and a couple of others probably as well. But a handful of people,speaking on the openess of the OGL or a more open GSL doesnt quite cancel out WotC's actually actions.

Actions have always spoke louder than words. I still dont see Wotc/Wizards/Hasbro changing here. But thats just me.

To be honest, you still seem like your cheerleading with rosecolored glasses, rather than looking a bit more objectively. But thats just me.

Agreed. Organizations are not monolithic. There will be differing points of view. At the end of the day, however, what is actually done and put into practice is the corporate policy. Any voices contrary to the objective evidence of corporate action are necessarily in the moinority for their point of view obviously did not hold sufficient sway to effect the corporate policy and actions flowing thereform. In other words, Scott may be nice but his views are not those of Wotc as judged by Wotc's actions with respect to the GSL. Believing otherwise is . . . overly hopeful.

 

[GVDammerung]

Again, I think the ENWorld community tends to overestimate the importance of 3PP. If 3PP are only a blip on the screen to WotC, can the GSL really be called a fiasco? Sure its a fiasco to OGL/3PP fans, but is it a fiasco to the larger D&D community or WotC/D&D itself?

I think things get muddled because of people's personal stake in things, and the fact that ENWorld seems to have a larger percentage of OGL/3PP fans than is the norm.

Yes. The GSL as part of a 4e launch that split the market is a fiasco.

Whether the split is 30-40% (split) vs 70-60% (going witgh 4e) as someone attributed to a Wotc source up thread or 20% (split)vs 80% (going with 4e) as Mistwell optimistically imagined upthread that big of a loss due to the split in either case is a fiasco.

The GSL comes in precisely because it impacts the likes of EnWorlders. It is fashionable to say EnWorlders opinions do not matter but the term for internet active brand advocates (and that can be positive or negative advocacy) is "thought leaders." In other words these are your committed die-hards who run groups speak to others and generally influence thought. They are not all important but they are not trivial and do have importance.

The GSL negatively impacted thought leaders making it all the more unlikely Wotc can heal the rift and all the more likely the split will harden at least for the duration of 4e.

So fiasco is the right term all around. 4e and the GSL are perfect examples of how to damage a brand and how not to reinvent one. Someone upthread called Wotc "arrogant" in their approach - bingo. And that overweening pride has gone before the fall - the split of the D&D brand audience. If Hasbro really cared about D&D, which I don't think they do, people at the top of Wotc would have been fired for so mishandling the marketing of 4e.

Yeah. Fiasco.

 

[Mark]

Spoken as a man who never judged the early years of the ENnies.

Agreed. From the first year, Children of the Grave comes to mind.

 

[Primal]

Spoken as a man who never judged the early years of the ENnies.

Hey, even *THAT* stuff trumps -- in my opinion -- the "official" adventures WoTC is putting out these days!

 

[ggroy]

Hey, even *THAT* stuff trumps -- in my opinion -- the "official" adventures WoTC is putting out these days!

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)

 

[olshanski]

Speaking for myself:
If necromancer had been publishing 4E at the launch of 4E, I would have made the transition. I was the DM for a group of 6.

As it was, I bailed on 4E. 2 of my players moved on to 4E, the other 4 did not.

In the past few months, I've played 4E using the quick start rules as a player, with a very talented DM. (Keep on the shadowfell) I just feel that the train has left the station and I have no interest in pursuing the game.

I've purchased the remainder of the DCC line, and Ptolus, but I think I'm done with 3.5, and I also am not going to jump on 4E.

From here on out I am running a homebrew game or playing board games (Power Grid, Ticket to Ride, etcetera).

Perhaps I'll rejoin D&D when the fifth edition is released... or perhaps I'll be playing some indie game like Barbarians of Lemuria or Dogs in the Vinyard.

 

[Mark]

Power Grid

That's a particularly fun game. My group plays a good deal of that and Race for the Galaxy and Ninja Burger.