Publishers' opinions on v3.5

[woodelf]

I don't want to be a 3.5 basher. There are things I don't like about it from a design standpoint, but there are things I like too. And I think it will sell well for WotC. I just worry about the effect it could (emphasis on "could") have on d20 sales. It's certainly muddied the waters and made d20 a more confusing place. I've already had people tell me "I won't buy your product if you convert to 3.5" and others say "I'll only buy your product if it works with 3.5." That's a lose/lose situation for me. While you can make logical arguments all day long that the changes aren't that severe, that it's all compatible, etc. what matters in the end is consumer perception.

Are you getting comments like that about AU? 'Cause, if so, they're batty. That's like complaining because Spycraft or Everquest aren't getting "updated" for 3.5E. It's its own game, and you'd have pretty much ended up with the same thing starting from the 3.5E rulesbase as the 3E, yes? Do you make any headway telling them that?

Oh, and just thought i'd mention that i don't care how compatible you are with either edition--it's precisely the differences from the WotC books that have me seriously considering picking up AU and Diamond Throne (that's where the armor-as-DR rules will be, right?), while i've passed on all the WotC books to date. Your design diary is making "D&D" sound fun again--something that hasn't been true for me for a decade. And i don't think i'm the only one--there seem to be a fair number of people, here and on RPGNet who are saying that they intend to skip 3.5E specifically because they're buying AU instead. I dunno about your other products, but i suspect you're gaining sales for AU that you wouldn't have had if 3.5E wasn't coming out at teh same time.

Actually, come to think of it, wouldn't it be fair to characterize the vast majority of Malhavoc's products as being deliberately alternatives to core rules? That is, instead of an add on, they replace something (the Bard class, psionic combat rules, etc.). It seems to me that the only threat 3.5E poses to that business model isn't incompatibility (people are choosing your products because they think they're better than the core), but competition--people might like the changes 3.5E makes more than the ones you make. I'd think they were daft, but it could happen.

 

[BryonD]

oops

 

[BryonD]

oops oops

 

[BryonD]

I don't want to be a 3.5 basher. There are things I don't like about it from a design standpoint, but there are things I like too. And I think it will sell well for WotC. I just worry about the effect it could (emphasis on "could") have on d20 sales. It's certainly muddied the waters and made d20 a more confusing place. I've already had people tell me "I won't buy your product if you convert to 3.5" and others say "I'll only buy your product if it works with 3.5." That's a lose/lose situation for me. While you can make logical arguments all day long that the changes aren't that severe, that it's all compatible, etc. what matters in the end is consumer perception.

Monte,

Just for comparison, are you not doing the same thing? Instead of looking at the entire d20 community, just consider the portion that are regular malhavok customers. Now many of those people will, obviously, be all over AU. But some of us are much more interested in staying with D&D.

I used to look at all of Fiery Dragon's stuff, for example.

Now I will (virtually) only look at the non-AU stuff. I imagine that some people who switch to AU will be significantly less interested in future D&D stuff that they do. So just like that, FD's customer base becomes segmented.

(Obviously, in reality most people will still look at both some and pick based on quality. But that arguement applies to the 3 vs 3.5 arguement even more)

 

[Monte At Home]

Just for comparison, are you not doing the same thing?

No, and here's why. The key difference is that AU doesn't ask you to throw away your Player's Handbook. It doesn't give you all the same stuff, just a little different. (To put it another way, it's a variant Player's Handbook, not a replacement Player's Handbook.) No one is going to come to a messageboard, ask a question about Power Attack, and risk getting different answers based on whether you're using AU or the core rules--but they will get different answers based on 3.0 and 3.5. That's the nutshell of the concern about splitting the market.

I suppose really the more apt comparison is Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds. Are AEG or Green Ronin splitting the market with these products? I don't think so. I think they're fun alternatives to D&D, but no one is saying to me "Monte, if the next Book of Hallowed Might doesn't have Mutants and Masterminds stats in it, I'm not buying it."

There's also a matter of scale. While AU is looking to be our most popular product ever, probably by far, we're talking about an order of magnitude of difference between our sales and core rulebook sales.

In fact, I could release "Monte Cook's 3.5" and build it on the same business model as WotC's 3.5 (throw away your existing core rulebooks and use these instead) and it would not risk actually splitting the market in any measurable degree. The difference between WotC's sales and d20 industry sales is that significant.

Ultimately, in a situation like the d20 industry, the guy at the top of the pyramid can't make the same kinds of decisions as someone farther down without inflicting far greater (and potentially hazardous) changes.

That said, I'm hoping that even 3.5 won't upset the cart too much. Remember, my post was talking about risk, not predictions of doom.

 

[Monte At Home]

Are you getting comments like that about AU?

No, because as you point out, the 3.0/3.5 compatibility problem doesn't really arise.

It's with other products. Yes, we're still doing regular core rules-supporting d20 products at Malhavoc as well. We've got Cry Havoc and Anger of Angels coming out this year and I start working on a product called Chaositech next week.

 

[BryonD]

Thanks Monte.

You make good points.

I think AU is still a lot closer to being "Monte's 3.5" than to Spycraft. Afterall, I can not think of any other game where the term "Alternate Player's Handbook" remotely fits.

And unless Necmancer, Mystic Eye, etc are hiring more people to do AU (news to me), then they will be doing LESS D20. So that segments the community.

That said, I still think your points are valid. I don't think AU will end up putting any real dent in D&D (no offense, even if AU is 100 times better, I just think that is a market reality). But at the same time, I really doubt the whole 3E/3.5 thing will turn out to be any big deal. Sure people will complain about pet issues. But people seem to house rule so many things that no two games are exactly the same anyway. This will just shuffle the house rule deck and die down as a big issue. I predict 6 months from now the only real reference to "old" 3E you hear will be as justification for a particular house rule. So I guess I think you are downplaying AU a bit and over estimating the effect of 3.5. They are relative close to the same (both small). (And I do understand that you are not predicting doom)

Anyway, for the record, to all D20 publishers, "If the next <product> doesn't have D20 stats in it, I'm not buying it."

 

[The Sigil]

Thanks Monte.

You make good points.

I think AU is still a lot closer to being "Monte's 3.5" than to Spycraft. Afterall, I can not think of any other game where the term "Alternate Player's Handbook" remotely fits.

And unless Necmancer, Mystic Eye, etc are hiring more people to do AU (news to me), then they will be doing LESS D20. So that segments the community.

That said, I still think your points are valid. I don't think AU will end up putting any real dent in D&D (no offense, even if AU is 100 times better, I just think that is a market reality). But at the same time, I really doubt the whole 3E/3.5 thing will turn out to be any big deal. Sure people will complain about pet issues. But people seem to house rule so many things that no two games are exactly the same anyway. This will just shuffle the house rule deck and die down as a big issue. I predict 6 months from now the only real reference to "old" 3E you hear will be as justification for a particular house rule. So I guess I think you are downplaying AU a bit and over estimating the effect of 3.5. They are relative close to the same (both small). (And I do understand that you are not predicting doom)

Anyway, for the record, to all D20 publishers, "If the next <product> doesn't have D20 stats in it, I'm not buying it."

Remember, AU stuff IS in fact "d20" stuff. IMO, the only significant difference you will see between the two will be perhaps in the "assumed base Feats." I think "converting" AU to "standard" D&D will be slightly harder than converting a Forgotten Realms d20 product to a Greyhawk setting (because there will be some fundamental differences in the basic selection of spells, mechanics, etc.) but slightly less difficult than converting, say, an Oriental Adventures (d20 version) character to a Greyhawk setting.

Basically, I think that trying to use stuff from products that support AU will be kind of like trying to use stuff from products that support the Psionics Handbook (though slightly easier, IMO). It all still works together fine, but stuff that supports Psionics assumes four "handbooks" (PH, DMG, MM, PsiH) instead of three (PH, DMG, MM). Similarly, my guess is that the assumption in AU-support products will be that you have AU, DMG, MM.

While the "setting details" will be different, the "crunchy stuff" should still work just fine. And this comes from someone who hasn't seen either AU or 3.5e yet - this is based solely on my knowledge of how the d20/OGL system has worked across a large cross-section of products to this point.

--The Sigil

 

[BryonD]

I assume your use of "d20" in quotes was pointed. Because it will NOT be D20.

Yes, the mechanics will work similarly. The Death and Dying rule and most of the feats should cross over fine. I expect that I will probably buy the first AU book for that purpose.

But, until now whenever anyone has published a D20 fantasy supplement it has been a "supplement for the most popular role playing game in the world." That game has elves and dwarves and rogues and fighters. I am happy to drop a Green Ronin Steve Kenson Shaman into my D&D game. I do not see myself dropping a littorian runethane in however. Just as I don't see many people who are into AU wanting to drop a fire and forget shaman into their game. As I re-read Monte's design diaries I see him trumpeting the breaks from the D&D conventions. Which he is. And that is cool. But please, don't try to have it both ways.

But this is all minutia. My real point is that Monte is changing the game FAR more with his rules than 3.5 is. So I do not see how one can claim that 3.5 will segment the market and AU will not.

 

[BryonD]

I apologize for dragging this thread into an AU talk. That was not what I intended.

To be clear I REALLY think that AU will be a great game. I mean, duh, Monte's credentials are as solid as they come.

But I do think Monte is showing a bias and even a bit of double standard. His dog in the D20 fight puts him on the side of being hesitant toward change. His dog in the AU fight puts him on the side of being an advocate of change.

I wish I could come up with better words for it. I don't think Monte is being IN ANY WAY a bad guy here. I think he is telling the complete truth. But there is an inherent bias in his business position. I mean, if Ed Stark popped in here and said, "Pwah, 3.5 will not segment the market in any way Monte." You would take what he said with a grain of salt because he is selling a product. Same thing with Monte.

Monte, to you personally, I really hope you see my point. I've been reading your webpage since you started it and I am convinced that you are a sincere, honest guy and you really want to just make a living selling people the games they want to play.