Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Melan" data-source="post: 4833073" data-attributes="member: 1713">This is my position as well. The mismanaged introduction of the GSL is worthy of a lot of blame, but there also seems to be an underlying cultural shift towards more official, more codified, more fine-tuned gaming instead of the fairly free market of ideas that characterised 3.0. Looking at ENWorld or RPGNet's D&amp;D subforum, I am not seeing a buzz for 3rd party products that promise a different play experience, while people are still passionately debating the merits of various 4e rulebooks. Around 2001, ENWorld was awash with discussions over Sword&amp;Sorcery's product, the pentagram on Relics&amp;Rituals, first edition feel, Green Ronin and all that; today, this doesn't seem to be the case.The second point is that with 4e, Wizards pretty much massacred Necromancer's niche and split its market. If you like &quot;1st edition feel&quot; or &quot;old school&quot;, it is often very hard to like 4e's supposed innovations, or even recognise the game as a legitimate D&amp;D edition. Sure, there are lots of people who fall into this category, but I'd estimate there were at least as many who jumped ship or just quietly walked away. It is a hard game to write old school support for.Third, what remained of Necro's niche is now efficiently served by Goodman Games (although I consider their products to be more hit and miss) and Expeditious Retreat Press. It is not easy to return to the field, especially as a hobby company that effectively hasn't published new books for years now.All in all, I have a lot of symapthy for Clark, but they are in a bit of a predicament. I would love to see some long-promised classics (e.g. The Sword of Air or Treasure Maps and Lairs), and generally more low-maintenance, low-pagecount products, but I am skeptical about their viability in today's environment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Melan, post: 4833073, member: 1713"] This is my position as well. The mismanaged introduction of the GSL is worthy of a lot of blame, but there also seems to be an underlying cultural shift towards more official, more codified, more fine-tuned gaming instead of the fairly free market of ideas that characterised 3.0. Looking at ENWorld or RPGNet's D&D subforum, I am not seeing a [I]buzz[/I] for 3rd party products that promise a different play experience, while people are still passionately debating the merits of various 4e rulebooks. Around 2001, ENWorld was awash with discussions over Sword&Sorcery's product, the pentagram on Relics&Rituals, first edition feel, Green Ronin and all that; today, this doesn't seem to be the case. The second point is that with 4e, Wizards pretty much [I][B]massacred[/B][/I] Necromancer's niche and split its market. If you like "1st edition feel" or "old school", it is often very hard to like 4e's supposed innovations, or even recognise the game as a legitimate D&D edition. Sure, there are lots of people who fall into this category, but I'd estimate there were at least as many who jumped ship or just quietly walked away. It is a hard game to write old school support for. Third, what remained of Necro's niche is now efficiently served by Goodman Games (although I consider their products to be more hit and miss) and Expeditious Retreat Press. It is not easy to return to the field, especially as a hobby company that effectively hasn't published new books for years now. All in all, I have a lot of symapthy for Clark, but they are in a bit of a predicament. I would love to see some long-promised classics (e.g. [B]The Sword of Air[/B] or [B]Treasure Maps and Lairs[/B]), and generally more low-maintenance, low-pagecount products, but I am skeptical about their viability in today's environment. [/QUOTE]

Verification