'New Classics' Module Survey

[Scribble]

I think personally that a lot of people didn't really know to work with the GSL both because WoTC wasn't as communicative as it could have been, and because people weren't thinking of it in terms of how 4e worked as a system.

(For instance I remember people were very upset about not being able to use monster stats straight out of the books for their own modules and such despite the fact that 4e is setup so monsters are almost always modified for specific adventures anyway.)

I also think that most of the big names were already out of D&D anyway and working on their own stuff.

A lot of them had already gone from making D&D support material to using d20 as the framework for their own base systems.

Paizo was actually kind of late to the party on that one, but as a result I think ended up working to their favor. Right place right time and all that.

And now, WoTC has created their own greatest competitor who had previously been their biggest feeder (Paizo).

Were they though? I obviously don't have the numbers, but I kind of wonder how much business they actually brought to WoTC?

It kind of seemed like the path a lot of companies took was:

Make OGL D20 stuff, get their name out, make their own d20 based system, and move on.

Did that help WoTC? I don't know...

I can see the argument that more stuff for D&D meant more people playing D&D. But I still wonder did all those players actually equate to money for WoTC?

In my own case? Not really... I played 3e sure, but used a lot of 3rd party stuff... So the 3rd parties got my money even though I played D&D.

Wonder how many more Me's there were?

 

[ahayford]

Are you saying you didn't buy and WoTC D20 material? Even PHB and other crunch material?

 

[Scribble]

Are you saying you didn't buy and WoTC D20 material? Even PHB and other crunch material?

I bought a sum total of about 9 books from WoTC over the course of the edition.

The vast majority of my money went to 3pp. So even though I played D&D it didn't really benefit WoTC much.

 

[Rechan]

This appears to have gone into a tangent on the OGL/GSL but alright.

I another nail in the coffin of 3rd party products in general is the Character Builder/Compendium.

That thing is massive, and people love it. But it won't incorporate 3rd party products. So even if you want to create monsters or player options, you now have to contend with people preferring to use the DDi tools.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'd suggest Reavers of Harkenwold from the Dungeon Master's Kit as a 4e adventure that could become a classic. It's quite good.

 

[Scribble]

I'd suggest Reavers of Harkenwold from the Dungeon Master's Kit as a 4e adventure that could become a classic. It's quite good.

I keep hearing good things about this one, but haven't yet picked up the DM's kit.

 

[Pour]

I think he's saying comparatively speaking he bought way more 3rd party support than actual WotC product, calling into question whether or not 3rd party in conjunction with the OGL was as beneficial as generally viewed. I'm not sure we could ever quite figure that out, and I certainly know people that will defend the OGL like religious doctrine so that deserves its own thread in the General Forums and riot gear, but either way if 4e 3rd party support is going to increase, it will have to use the GSL, so that's much more an active concern of mine moving forward, being more knowledgeable about that license, than OGL. I'm still feeling confident, though, given the continued 4e support from other companies. It's possible, and we can do it, too.

I wonder, though, could the OGL be used for 4e through some devious maneuvering of 3e into 4e with assumed 'house rules'? Even if it was, not sure it's quite worth it, and no doubt it would draw the ire of some legal team or other, when an honest effort via the GSL could garner praise and support.

EDIT: Wow I am slow at responding lol.

 

[Pour]

Another nail in the coffin of 3rd party products in general is the Character Builder/Compendium.

That thing is massive, and people love it. But it won't incorporate 3rd party products. So even if you want to create monsters or player options, you now have to contend with people preferring to use the DDi tools.

Yes, this is a very real concern, though in my opinion not an impossible hurtle, especially for modules. Whether a printed or PDF module, I like having everything in one place, and when I create session notes for my own games, I'm often picking stuff out of the Compendium and incorporating them into a single document not unlike a module has already done for me. A module is really the best place to introduce new monsters and material, more so than splat books and supplements, as its right there, in context, and ready to be used.

Now a predominantly player-oriented 3rd party supplement involving character options, well, I admit I wouldn't be nearly as apt to pick that up unless it got some rave reviews.

 

[ahayford]

I tend to agree. I don't really think lack of 3rd party support in the WoTC tools would hurt 3rd party modules (splat and crunch content sure). Although if WoTC ever finishes the virtual tabletop they promised when 4e released I could see an issue. Though honestly, with the amount of free tools that exist, the WoTC virtual tabletop would have to be pretty awesome to pull in a lot of users.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So like the Open Design Project that Wulfgang does?

I'm not familiar with that, but if my guess is correct, then no. I don't care so much about the origin design of the work, but instead care to transform it into something far more useful. If the Open Design Project also includes this stuff, then I guess it would be okay.