OGL; Is it working?

[Psion]

(shrug)

I always thought the gritty yet filled with varied magic wonders feel of Sanctuary made it a great fit for D&D. Yeah, they tried to fit the feel of magic and a few other things a bit more to the novel... that is the goal of a license, is it not? Yes, f I were to drop it in to my D&D game with the serial numbers rubbed off, I wouldn't use the magic system. But OTOH, the fact that the magic system uses existing spells means that I could plug in a variety of existing resources.

I don't see why you are holding their feet to the fire over this, Joe. I think Green Ronin did a good job of trying to play to both sides of the fence. Will it perfectly address all potential buyers? No. You can't please all the people all the time. But I think that thieves' world is highly usuable by both D&Ders and "setting purists".

 

[GMSkarka]

But, I can't understand how being rude will gain a company more sales than they lose.

The part of the equation that you're missing is that one person's "Being Rude" is another persons "Treating An Internet Asshat In The Manner They Deserve", which, for better or worse, some people enjoy seeing. For every person who whines about industry folks being rude & unprofessional, there is another person who agrees with how the industry folks blasted somebody who was being a jerk.

...and again, what I'm saying is that the two groups usually tend to cancel eachother out....and tend to be miniscule to begin with: Most folks don't care one way or another. They just want their stuff.

 

[JoeGKushner]

(shrug)
I don't see why you are holding their feet to the fire over this, Joe. I think Green Ronin did a good job of trying to play to both sides of the fence. Will it perfectly address all potential buyers? No. You can't please all the people all the time. But I think that thieves' world is highly usuable by both D&Ders and "setting purists".

I apologize if people are reading it as "holding them over the fire." I think that they did a great job.

I just don't think that everyone seeking standard material to use in their normal fantasy setting is running out and buying it.

They may be buying it, like I am, because they love Thieves World.

They may be buying it because they wanted to try something of a lower power scale than the standard D&D assumptions.

They may be buying it because they want to see some of the alternatives presented in it.

I just don't think, and this is my opinion only, that Joe Gamer is buying it for use in his standard D&D campaign.

 

[Psion]

I just don't think, and this is my opinion only, that Joe Gamer is buying it for use in his standard D&D campaign.

Joe Gamer, huh? So that's what the G stands for.

I definitely agree that there are some gamers who will view the changes in the system used in the book as an obstacle.

And there are some who won't.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I think it could be argued that -- these days -- D&D doesn't fit the standard assumptions most people have when they think of D&D. A lot of the elements of the latest rules are heavily inspired by computer games* and don't fit what people think when they think of D&D.

What people? The third edition is starting to move on in age. You're not saying that only previous players are playing now are you?

* Which can be fine, with the right group. But a large number of people (much larger that I once thought) prefer a less computer-inspired version of D&D. Decreasing the magic and power level goes a long way toward giving those players what they want. Thus, in my opinion, there is a significant group of people that may see TW as more D&D-like than the current version of D&D.

Dismissing several products because they do not fit your thoughts on what is or is not D&D does a great disservice to those with a different set of assumptions and needs.

A D20 product is, in most instances, a D20 product.

I'm not dismissing them as bad products. My review of Black Company was five stars for example, and I enjoy it.

But it ain't D&D. It, like Thieves World, does things to the base power level assumptions. If you're a guy just going to play standard D&D, or RPGA D&D for example, their utility drops quickly.

If you're looking to capture the Black Company or run a gritty D20 game, they work fantastic.

And as far as dismissing people who see things differently than I do? Well, someone's reading into my postings pretty deep. Not my intention. I blame it on the internet.

 

[BryonD]

Dismissing several products because they do not fit your thoughts on what is or is not D&D does a great disservice to those with a different set of assumptions and needs.

Absolutely true. But, IMO, it misses the point.
The point is not, what does Joe like or what does Bryon like.
The point is, why do publishers consistently hear certain themes and then get the opposite response when they try to act on those themes.

I certainly don't think there is any one unifying concept of what D&D is at this time.
But I do really think that there are a whole lot of people who each have their own unique idea. And a niche product is going to mesh with some of those and not with others.

Certainly a D20 product is a D20 product.

But there a D20 products that John Doe Gamer thinks supports his game and there are D20 products that John Doe Gamer thinks do NOT support his game.

Ultramodern Firearms and Plot and Poison are both D20 products. They are both very good D20 products. But if you just play D&D and someone is going to buy one of those for you as a Christmas gift, then I would hope for you that the giver does not just think that it is as simple as a D20 product is a D20 product.

 

[Psion]

The point is, why do publishers consistently hear certain themes and then get the opposite response when they try to act on those themes.

I think I adressed this earlier. To recap: the people who are happy with what you are doing aren't going to complain. Until you change what you are doing.

You have to be careful at taking a few squeaky hinges in the audience as being more representative than they might really be.

 

[BryonD]

The part of the equation that you're missing is that one person's "Being Rude" is another persons "Treating An Internet Asshat In The Manner They Deserve", which, for better or worse, some people enjoy seeing. For every person who whines about industry folks being rude & unprofessional, there is another person who agrees with how the industry folks blasted somebody who was being a jerk.

...and again, what I'm saying is that the two groups usually tend to cancel eachother out....and tend to be miniscule to begin with: Most folks don't care one way or another. They just want their stuff.

So when you do it, it is righteous industry folks blasting someone for being a jerk.
When someone else does it, they are being a jerk and their claims about your behavior are written off as whining.

Got it.

I'm still curious how you manage to quantify the lost sales. Its that mystic power, right?

Funny that the publishers who are polite seem to have such higher respect both as posters and as publishers. Their better reputations and sales must come from something. If you insist it has nothing to do with manners, then perhaps it must just be a product quality thing. ::shrug::

 

[BryonD]

I think I adressed this earlier. To recap: the people who are happy with what you are doing aren't going to complain. Until you change what you are doing.

You have to be careful at taking a few squeaky hinges in the audience as being more representative than they might really be.

I agree. I don't think I have really disagreed with what you have said anywhere in this thread. A lot of it is just a matter of degree. And there is no doubt in my mind that the screaming minority is a key element of this.

But, and I'm extrapolating here, there seems to be some inference that some products have not just received bad feedback, but have underperformed market wise as well. I certainly get that impression. And, to be clear, I haven't any indication that TW is a good specific example there or not.

But, like I said earlier, if times are hard for D20 in general right now, then a vocal minority of 10% may be all it takes to turn a profit into a disappointment.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But either way, I still think the whole point is about why do these comments come out so loud. I think my reasoning is fairly accurate as to why. That can still be true even if only a very small fraction of the audience is making them. And if so, I certainly agree that the significance should be taken greatly into account.

 

[BryonD]

Or to put it more simple:

I've given a good answer to "Why?".
You counter question may be "Who cares why?". That may be valid and I don't claim to have a good answer.