Orcus of Necromancer Games says "You were right, I was wrong"

[Thunderfoot]

Clark,
I too was an advocate of 4e (as a player not a publisher) but have since run into...um ethical, reasons as to why I can't play 4e - I'm a fat beard, historical, fantasy masher - too much money, too much magic and too much "tactical role" assigning is involved.

I had to apologize to people I knew after the PHB came out and it sucked on a personal level. I have no idea how hard it would be or was to have to do it in front of this crowd (no offense folks but we can be a BIT over the top in our criticisms...sometimes ). I applaud you and laud you for your contrition and your downright bravery under the circumstances.

I have never been a fan of Necromancers products, just not my cup of tea, but I will say you guys have ALWAYS been a class act in publishing and this proves that all the more.

 

[Jack99]

I don't think it is true that Goodman are not using the GSL for their 4e adventures, for two reasons:

1. They have a prominent "for use with Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their main 4e product page. I don't think they can use that without having signed the GSL.

2. They are listed on the WotC partnerships page, which I believe includes only companies producing GSL products.

Nope. I own all of them and they all have the OGL page inside.

AFAIK EN publishing and its War of the Burning Sky are the only (decent or better) adventures published via the GSL. There has been a few others, but to be honest, they have been mediocre at best.

 

[Angellis_ater]

@Jack99 From a publishing view I'm wondering - since you've probably read them all - are there any differences between say ENP's War of the Burning Sky or GGs DCCs? I mean, related to their choice of license?

 

[Echohawk]

Well, you're wrong since I just checked their Adventures out. OGL. NO GSL.

Not to be rude - but fact-checking is kinda cool, atleast that's what I hear.

No worries, I'm always happy to be corrected if I'm wrong . I would have checked the adventures directly for the OGL/GSL, but alas I don't own any, so my fact-checking was limited to investigating their web site. The explanation that they are producing both OGL and GSL makes perfect sense, even if it is a little odd. I wonder why they split their products like that?

 

[ggroy]

I don't think it is true that Goodman are not using the GSL for their 4e adventures, for two reasons:

1. They have a prominent "for use with Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their main 4e product page. I don't think they can use that without having signed the GSL.

2. They are listed on the WotC partnerships page, which I believe includes only companies producing GSL products.

No worries, I'm always happy to be corrected if I'm wrong . I would have checked the adventures directly for the OGL/GSL, but alas I don't own any, so my fact-checking was limited to investigating their web site. The explanation that they are producing both OGL and GSL makes perfect sense, even if it is a little odd. I wonder why they split their products like that?

Looking at Goodman's 4E product page, it looks like the Forgotten Heroes, Hero's Handbook, Monstercology, etc ... line of books have "4E (GSL)" explicitly mentioned.

The Dungeon Crawl Classics and Master Dungeons lines don't have GSL mentioned, where they only mention "4E". Goodman is smart enough to know to keep the company's "crown jewels" away in a separate entity (ie. OGL) that they have more control over.

They probably know very well that if the GSL product lines of Forgotten Heroes, Hero's Handbook, Monstercology, etc ... were to simply disappear from the market tomorrow, the company would still have other viable product lines.

On the other hand, if the Dungeon Crawl Classics and Master Dungeons product lines were to disappear from the market, I wonder what else the company would have that hardcore gamers would buy.

EDIT: Last I checked out several local FLGS, the owners mentioned that the Forgotten Heroes books have largely been collecting dust ever since they were released. This was especially the case for the "Fang, Fist, and Song" book, after the 4E PHB2 was released.

 

[catsclaw227]

Well this makes me more than a little sad. I love Necromancer Games products, and own just about all of them, but 4E is my edition of choice. While I'm happy they'll be released, they're not for me, and I won't be purchasing them.

Why should anyone care? You probably shouldn't, except that I've been a Necromancer fan since day one, and they would have been a slam dunk for me if they were created for an edition I actually played.

This is pretty much my position as well.

I own just about everything Necromancer Games did for 3.x, and most in both print and PDF, but since I am playing 4e now, I really don't have a need for more 3.x adventures. I have more than I will ever need already.

But if this was released for 4e, I would have bought all of them.

I am among the other EnWorld members and Necro fans that want to know why there was a difficulty getting this done for 4e?

 

[catsclaw227]

This doesnt mean we wont ever do 4E products or Pathfinder ones. Its just that these products had sat around long enough. It was time to get them out. I should have done that back in the day when everyone said "no, get them out now, dont hold them, dont convert them, we want 3E adventures." I didn't listen.

I'd love to see some Necromancer 4e goodness. Get us a module, and you'll get my money.

 

[Retreater]

My guess (and only IMHO) is that the reason NG isn't producing 4e adventures is that neither the owners of NG nor their stable of writers like 4e sufficiently to produce material for it. Since the release of 4e, their boards have been pretty slow, with few people talking about 4e games they are playing.

If the Demon Lords of NG and their writers were stoked about 4e, I think nothing would stop them from writing kick @ss adventures for 4e.

As for me, a longtime NG fan and regular visitor on their boards, I have to say that I haven't played D&D (in any edition) in over 6 months. (I haven't played a session of 4e since July 08.) 4e's release pretty much stalled the momentum of the tabletop gaming hobby in my area, and I would imagine that others are the same.

I say that NG should continue to produce what they want to make. If they're not feeling 4e, then don't do it. There are plenty of people still playing 3.5 (and Pathfinder).

Retreater

 

[Drkfathr1]

I don't take this as "they can't do 4E", I take it as, "these were already finished and we want to be paid for the work we've already done on them, not totally re-write and re-design these specific 3 products, thus doing the work twice but only profiting once."

The encounter design from 3E to 4E would mean major re-writes of these already finished modules. It's most likely more trouble than it would be worth.

That's the impression I get at least.

 

[Wicht]

I'm happy to see Necromancer release these for 3.5.

I'm even happier to see Clark posting again even if it is just for a mea culpa. I had started to wonder if Orcus was gone for good from the boards.