Shane Hensley comments on the RPG industry

Lizard said:

The problem, I feel, is not that "This deviates from other D20 rules" but "This deviates from other D20 rules seemingly solely for greater compatibility with TS SAS." There is a perception, however false it may be, that D20 SAS was created by taking the files for TS SAS and changing the minimal possible amount of text.

I'd go one step further. I'd say, "This deviates from other D20 rules because the whole project was a blatant money grab and the bare minimum work was done to the TS rules to release a d20 version." It looks even worse, IMO, because it was an inept money grab. White Wolf got it right with Creature Collection (the money grab part, I mean; the book itself was terrible). Trying to "hop on the bandwagon" so late in the game and so obviously just looked foolish.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is a general response to Shane's post. I'm not going to quote it to save space.

First, a few of my comments were not aimed specifically at Shane but rather at the general trends I see in designers and in the market. I thought it was a little weird that his email message had been posted here, and wasn't sure if he posted or read this message board.

The issue of a glut v. a culling: this really comes down to personal definitions or views on the subject. To me, a glut isn't a glut until publishers start moving out of the market. We see companies diversifying, but not many pulling completely out of d20. Even then, for every company that drops d20 for something else (PEG) we see others that are jumping into the market (GOO). As long as the same volume of companies are willing to invest in d20 products, I don't see the market as glutted. A glut to me means that supply exceeds demand. When that happens, we should start seeing companies drop out. Now, companies may be moving fewer units of a d20 book, but I'm not convinced the numbers have reached the point that d20 has proven unprofitable.

I think Deadlands is in a unique position: it already has an established fan base and has been around for a few years. I'm not convinced that a d20 version could be a breakout hit, primarily because most people who wanted to play Deadlands already had picked it up. Since you already had a fanbase playing the game, a d20 version may not have been as attractive since people have already learned the rules and built up a collection of sourcebooks. I'd be curious to compare the sales of new d20 games or d20 conversions of recently released games. I'm willing to bet there's a bit more acceptance of them, since you don't have an existing fanbase that has a connection to the game's original system.

I'd be curious to see how WW did compared to non-d20 RPGs released during the same time period. While some fans may have complained about the system, I thought it worked fine. To be honest, I think a lot of designers are a little too worried about deviating from D&D. Players accepted some radical changes to D&D's underlying engine in the changeover from 2e to 3e. My gut read is that as long as the players do not have to learn many new rules, most GMs are willing to learn new rules to run a game that appeals to them.

Shane writes:
They do continue to sell at a steady rate--at least for those top tier publishers. Never said they didn't. But as you know Mike, a mutual friend of ours welll known to this list, and owner of one of the companies I've mentioned above, lamented on the private Delphi forums how preorders for his last book (a beautiful, D20 hardback) were far below what he'd expected. Every retailer he talked to had told him they wanted something new, and he gave it to them. But they still sold far more books on elves and dwarves than they did his.



If it's the book I think you're talking about, I'm not surprised that it isn't moving quickly. d20 books have to have utility for use during a game. If a book is too different from the average D&D campaign, I don't expect many D&D players to buy it. I think the non-d20 v. d20 markets are fundamentally different. Non-d20 players, specifically those who avoid d20, IME tend to collect game books, buy them for reading material, and place more value on novel rather than useful new material. They tend to make up lots of stuff wholesale for their games, including systems, and look at and buy RPGs books as one would purchase fiction. d20 buyers, OTOH, put a lot more value on utility. They buy books to use in their games. A subset buy books solely as reading material, but the majority of them see RPG books as tools to use in their games. If a book doesn't offer any obvious utility that directly translates into their campaigns, they tend to avoid it.

Shane writes:

As recently as Friday, the owner of Gameboard told me how much all of his retailers complained about new D20 products. But again, that's all that's selling right now.

Let's examine that a bit. If retailers are sick of D20, but that's all that's selling, there could be several things going on:

A) Retailers are (mostly) gamers like the rest of us, and have their opinions which they voice incessantly. But D20 sells, so that's what they buy. End of story.

B) D20 is about all there is right now besides GURPs and Hero. But GURPs and Hero are experiencing great sales spikes right now.

Again, draw your own conclusions. I don't have the answer, but if you doubt the truth of my comments, ask around.

I think both of these ideas are true. People who open game stores usually do so to turn their hobby into a something they do for a living. They know a fair bit about gaming and many of them are hardcore gamers. They like the games that say the regular posters at RPG.net like, but those same titles rarely have any commercial success.

Since d20 is drawing more people into gaming and more RPG revenue into store, it makes sense that other titles will also have improved sales. A rising tide carries all ships, as they say.

I don't think that B indicates people are leaving d20. I think that there was one time in this industry's history when D&D was vulnerable to a potential rival: 1989, the release of 2e. Other than that, I don't think a title has ever come close to posing a real threat to D&D's position. However, I do suspect that the market is poised right now for a breakout hit, be it d20 or something else. The industry is overdue for one, and with D&D3 reinvigorating the fan base the timing is right.

Shane writes about designers not liking d20:

No offense Mike, but I know lots of folks and talk to them often, and this *is* the general opinion. Someone said that perhaps I simply have friends who are all anti-D20. My personal gaming group is much that way and I'll freely admit it, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the heads of major companies. Again, I won't name anyone because it may hurt their business, and it's really not important anyway. Most of them aren't involved in the actual creation of material anyway--they dictate it to talented freelancers like you who *do* enjoy the material, and put their absolute best efforts forward to make a beautiful, professional product.

Whether this is true or not is immaterial. The intial message made it sound like there were legions of game designers chained to desks, forced to work on d20 material whether they liked it or not. There are designers who enjoy the system, and I'm willing to bet that as the d20 field matures they will grow in number and establish themselves in the business. I didn't have a single word in print until the year 2000. Since then, I've worked on over 50 titles and sold over a million words of work. I'm not alone. Ari Marmell, Patrick Younts, tons of other guys whose names I'm forgetting since it's midnight and I'm brain dead, are all breaking into the scene and now leaving their mark. Just as d20 is new, many of the designers behind it haven't been on the scene for long. But we're out there. Just because we don't post to mailing lists or hang out at the Velvet Room doesn't mean we aren't an emerging force. I suspect that in the next three years, we're going to see a lot of exciting things from these guys. We're writing sourcebooks and supplements right now, but soon we'll all be graduating up to writing complete games (d20 or not) and owning our own companies.

Let me make it clear that I don't think d20 is the be all and end all of gaming. The next game I'd like to run is a Warhamer FRP campaign. But as a software engineer, I think d20 is the first true *system* ever produced as an RPG. It demands work but rewards it. It allows a newbie or casual DM to produce balanced encounters, NPCs who can pose a threat to the characters without overpowering them, and gives him controls to prevent characters from becoming too powerful. It is a system in the sense that all of its parts combine together to form a cohesive whole. Each part is integrated into the system in a logical manner, and the entire thing was playtested on a greater scale than any other RPG ever produced. It's a radical change moving from designing for other systems to d20. You can't just make stuff up. You need to know the entire system to fit new pieces into it. I didn't feel 100% confident designing for the game until a year into my career. But man, does the system reward playing with it, learning it, and understanding its underlying structures. Once you have that down, it's far easier to build stuff for than any other game engine I've worked with as a designer or GM.

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I think the next few years will bear this out.
 
Last edited:

Re: And yet another perspective...

Moridin said:
Those that compare d20 to Microsoft (of which there has been thankfully little in this thread) would be more appropriate comparing d20 to Linux: open source, basic structure, distributed far and wide, and easily modified by developers. I think the OGL has done more FOR the industry than any other development in the last, what, 20 years? I've only been playing for around the last 15, so I'm not entirely sure. The fact is that it's moving products that would otherwise never see the light of day before it came around, and that can't be a bad thing to me.

This is an apt analogy. When I worked as a software developer, I dreaded working on MS stuff. There was very, very little information posted on the Internet. MS makes far too much money off selling technical support to coders to put any more than the barest information out there.

Perl and other open source tools, OTOH, have plenty of material on the web. I don't know how many times I hopped over to CPAN and downloaded Perl modules that overcame hurdles I had to handle at work.

d20 is the same way. Need naval combat rules for your d20 game? You can use any of the published ones out there, modify them to suit your needs, and publish them in your game book.

Personally, I prefer to work on d20 stuff because I know that my "work for hire" is out there for anyone to use. Before d20, if I wrote some cool new rules I sold all rights to the company I worked for. Now, I can keep a huge database of rules material and draw on it for new projects. That's a very powerful tool.
 

mearls said:
I think Deadlands is in a unique position: it already has an established fan base and has been around for a few years. I'm not convinced that a d20 version could be a breakout hit, primarily because most people who wanted to play Deadlands already had picked it up. Since you already had a fanbase playing the game, a d20 version may not have been as attractive since people have already learned the rules and built up a collection of sourcebooks. I'd be curious to compare the sales of new d20 games or d20 conversions of recently released games. I'm willing to bet there's a bit more acceptance of them, since you don't have an existing fanbase that has a connection to the game's original system.

I'd be curious to see how WW did compared to non-d20 RPGs released during the same time period. While some fans may have complained about the system, I thought it worked fine.
So Mike, I'm curious. How do you explain then, the success of Call of Cthulhu d20? It's been around for 20 years, has a RABID fan base, and the flame wars associated with the announcement of Call of Cthulhu d20 over at RPG.net was just amazing.

Yet, within 3 months of the publish date, not only did many of the rabid fans rave about the book, but WoTC came close to selling out their entire print run! And that's a fan base that's bought a large number of CoC supplements, etc. I'd be surprised if the CoC installed base wasn't larger than for Deadlands.

My suspicion is that the quality difference (i.e., the conversion to d20 was so well done that even veteran CoC players couldn't help but be sucked in --- I know, speaking as someone who bought CoC 4th edition and many a campaign from Chaosium) between Deadlands d20 and CoC d20 is why CoC d20 is a breakout hit, while Deadlands d20 is being dropped by its publisher.
 

mearls said:
...I think d20 is the first true *system* ever produced as an RPG. It demands work but rewards it. It allows a newbie or casual DM to produce balanced encounters, NPCs who can pose a threat to the characters without overpowering them, and gives him controls to prevent characters from becoming too powerful. It is a system in the sense that all of its parts combine together to form a cohesive whole. Each part is integrated into the system in a logical manner, and the entire thing was playtested on a greater scale than any other RPG ever produced. It's a radical change moving from designing for other systems to d20. You can't just make stuff up. You need to know the entire system to fit new pieces into it. I didn't feel 100% confident designing for the game until a year into my career. But man, does the system reward playing with it, learning it, and understanding its underlying structures. Once you have that down, it's far easier to build stuff for than any other game engine I've worked with as a designer or GM.

Amen.

I'd argue there are lots of other systems out there that are quite good and easy to develope for, but since no one else has gone OGL yet, there is not a lot of opportunity to compare.

I'm the mechanics lead for Spycraft, and I will attest that d20 can be made to give and flex in a lot of ways, but it does not take kindly to random perturbations. Changes in one part 'echo' all over the system, and writing with anything less than a comprehensive guide to the environment you are are working in (be it D&D or some other D20 system) is suicidal.

Small example: Ability scores used as prerequistes for feats should always be odd numbers. But how many people know why? If you choose to write a feat with Wis 14+ as a prerequisite, what consequence have you invoked that 13+ or 15+ wouldn't have?

My opinion of the d20 market (from the creative side) is that there are distinctly two kinds of writers out there: there are mechanics writers, and there are story writers. These are entirely different skill sets. Sure, a few people have both, but rarely is someone as strong in both activities. Good writers of either type are actually sort of rare :), but we won't get into that just yet. The d20 liscence allowed hordes of story writers without the necesarry skill set to build GAMES to still create PRODUCT because they could use the d20 system for that, and settle in to what they did best- building worlds, characters, and stories. This brought a lot of new companies/studios into existance right there. Later it became apparent that at least a modicum of mechanical talent was required on a project team to add crunchy bits.
Worlds/Adventures = Good.
Worlds/Adventures with setting specific crunchy bits (like prestige classes rooted in the setting or a new moster for a dungeon) = Better!

Personally I think the fantasy market is a little flooded, if not precisely glutted. D&D players still make up the single largest block of customers, and they can be amazingly difficult to persuade to play other games, "d20 System" logo or not.

This is the first of two hurdles a non-fantasy d20 game has to overcome to succeed. The other is that a non-fantasy d20 game also needs a LOT of new crunchy bits to function, and that means finding a capable d20 mechanics author/team to write all your new rules- far, far moreso than producing a moderately crunchy new D&D product. The need for such people was momentarily eclipsed in the intial surge of d20/D&D offerings. Now the worm has turned so to speak, and "crunch" is often a key determinant of a product's utility and desirabilty- because nearly by definition most Game Masters have at least moderate story writing skills, and are able to do a lot of the work of that nature themselves :)! (there are of course some crazed rule-tinkering GMs out there, who take great delight in disasembling the parts of the book I write and seeing how they tick, and what they could change to make them tick more loudly for their own games :p).

On the subject of garbage still selling- If your story/setting writing component is mediocre, you can still make back a modest profit on a book (at least the first few times- it will come back to haunt you if you don't outgrow certain habits), because your machanics side is still already based on the really excellent work that went into d20. You put half-baked mechanics in a book, you get nailed first time out of the gate. Very little flushes a new module's reveiws like a crapily designed monster. Because the quality of the adventure is subjective - the review is being interpretive on those points and frankly most reviews will let the product off with a good lashing and a "not my cup of tea, but some people may like it". The accuracy of the rules is objective and viciously precise. There is little mercy that I've seen in the d20 market for bad rules...

I'm rambling now, but I always interested in how these disussions overlook the awesomely D&D-o-centric nature of virtually all d20 publishing. There is an enormous difference in the risk taken between a new d20 game and a supliment that is D&D in all but imprint...

Must get back to work :)... got to wrap up the Fixer/Pointman Class Guide.
(hey one little plug at the end isn't that bad is it :D?)

Great thread. Look forward to a continuing dicusion with reviewers, fans, and designers all in the same ring :).
 
Last edited:

jasamcarl said:


That is not quite correct. This is when we get into the differences between economics and the technical aspects of business as seperate disciplines, but let me just say this; money IS the consistent motivator in the long run. Those who do not value tend to be hedged out eventually. The vague notions of job satisfaction and other such have historically been round about manners of compensation when wages are 'sticky' for some reason and are highly uneven in their effect.

As to your assessment of the rpg industry, i have no doubt that the traditional motivation of production has this so-called 'passion'. But, as ryand has stated, d20 is changing this, with its big name brand, DND, now being run as a CONSUMER-driven business. The pie is growing bigger and an increasing number of the new producers are apparently entering in large part because they see profit oppurtunities. They are likely to produce more d20 because they can now get more income to complement their 'luxery' work, attaining a higher level of utility in the process. The suits are winning, and thank god.

Is your business textbook written by Bazooka Joe? I think you are making a macrocosm case of a microcosm industry. It is never really a good thing when the suits are winning, because there aren't that many suits.

In the real world, business runs heavily on speculation and risk. The true motivations, success and thriving, must be placed before monetary thoughts. You have a direct focus, which brings indirect benefits.

hellbender
 

Geoff Watson said:


I think you are correct. Jeff has mentioned on the GoO boards that they made it as close as possible to the TriStat rules to save space when dual-statting supplements; and that most of the typos in the d20 book were due to copying straight from the Tristat manuscript.

Almost accurate. Well, actually, that might be exactly accurate but it isn't accurate to I should have said if that is in fact what I said that.

A great deal of effort was made to ensure the systems were compatible to facilitate dual-statting _but,_ as anyone who has looked at the two systems closely will note, they were amazingly similar thus facilitating this process. If one system had a +2 bonus for a given situation, I found that the other had a similar +2 bonus. I believe there were only a handful (and not a full one at that) of incidents where the Tri-Stat modifier and the d20 modifier for a given situation were not the exact same. When they were different, we obviously went with the d20 modifier but found them identical often enough that it was not a major issue, making compatiblity for dual-statting very easy. Also, due to the similarities between the modifiers, it made me confident that I did not need to change other modifiers for rules that d20 did not cover (ie: called shots) since, using all the other similarities as a basis, they probably would have been the same had they already existed in d20.

As for the Tri-Stat-isms slipping through the editing process.... Well, we do have egg on our faces regarding that. Obviously, a lot of the material was taken from the Tri-Stat manuscript and converted to the d20 system (duh!) and, sadly, the tight production schedule allowed some stupid, minor editing foibles to slip through. There are just enough to be annoying, from my perspective. In most cases, they appear in the character write-ups in the back of the book which were done last, once the system was finished but very shortly before the book was sent to press. That is why the problem occured - I didn't want to convert the characters until the system was finalized and we were working on the system material up until about two weeks before the book went to press. One more week would have made all the difference in the world...

Anyhow, editing mistakes? Yup. They are there. They don't break the book, but they are annoying. Casual system conversion? Nope. Don't ever think that it was a casual process - a great deal of time and thought was put into converting Silver Age Sentinels Tri-Stat to SAS d20 (no, not the British Special Forces <grin>).
 

baseballfury said:


I'd go one step further. I'd say, "This deviates from other D20 rules because the whole project was a blatant money grab and the bare minimum work was done to the TS rules to release a d20 version."

For those who want to understand why I get so upset when I see people complaining about SAS d20, the above is a perfect example of it. Seeing people imply that I didn't do a lot of work on the project pisses me off because I know how much time, effort, and thought I put into the project. You are welcome to comment on the success or failure of that effort (assuming you've read the book), since everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when people imply that I didn't put effort into the project?...
 

baseballfury said:


I'd go one step further. I'd say, "This deviates from other D20 rules because the whole project was a blatant money grab and the bare minimum work was done to the TS rules to release a d20 version." It looks even worse, IMO, because it was an inept money grab. White Wolf got it right with Creature Collection (the money grab part, I mean; the book itself was terrible). Trying to "hop on the bandwagon" so late in the game and so obviously just looked foolish.

I think this is definitely a fault of a lot of systems that do a d20 conversion. Deadlands d20 had this problem with Way of the Huckster and Book o'the Dead (both of which really surprised me, because I was very impressed with the Deadlands d20 core book and Way of the Gunslinger). Holistic's Devils & Deviltry was similarly flawed.

I can understand why it happens - I mean, they already spent so much effort in coming up with the material originally, but it REALLY shows when the material isn't re-written from the ground up.

The dual-statted books have similar problems - it seems all too often that the d20 stuff is just tossed in as an afterthought, and it ignores both the strengths & weaknesses of the d20 system. And no matter which system you play - the original or d20 - there's this section of the book that's pretty useless to you. Again, I understand why it happens, but I end up feeling a bit short-changed after my purchase..

Richard
 

ColonelHardisson said:
SAS=Silver Age Sentinels, right? I kept thinking someone had done a Special Air Service d20 book, along the lines of Afghanistan d20.

I haven't made up my mind yet, either. I don't know much about it, truth to tell.

Well, if you want to read a very informative review (it covers the good and the bad of the product very well, in my opinion), check out the review on rpg.net:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7213.html

Admittedly, it's a favourable review over all, which might explain why I like it, but I think it also honestly points out the flaws of the product (some editing foibles that have already been discussed in this thread).
 

Remove ads

Top