Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[BryonD]

Problem was, Clark and NG did not really have any ideas of note. They had a vague idea of making something called Classic 4e, which would be more oldschool D&D than 4e. Not quite the same as what Jason did

Maybe. I think writing off Clark as not having "any ideas of note" is a mistake. But in either case, as you said, "classic 4e" was "very late" to the table.

They had a lot of very clear ideas early on. But for reasons both GSL related and otherwise, they got derailed. Only after it was clear that plan A wasn't working did the plan B of a "vague idea of making something called Classic 4e" start being considered. IMO it took time for it to become obvious that model they used to support 3E simply wasn't viable for support of 4E. "Classic 4E" was an effort to find another model.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, you keep insinuating that Clark is lying.

No, I don't, and please don't put words in my mouth. Particularly an accusation like that. If I think someone is lying, I'll say I think they are lying. I do not think Clark is lying.

Were he the only 3pp to say that the GSL had problems and that it would be a mistake to get involved in it, then that would be one thing. But when almost every large 3pp says the same thing with only one exception (Goodman, but are they actually even using the GSL?) then perhaps you would be better served by taking them at their word.

They are not saying that however. They said that for the original GSL. But I have not seen a lot of folks saying that about the second version. Most seemed to just move on with their lives after the first and not look back.

Have you stopped to consider that Clark's dissatisfaction with 4e may be a result of lingering hurt caused by the GSL fiasco? That is at least just as plausible as his words about the GSL being the result of not playing 4e anymore.

Yes, of course I have, which is why I SAID THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE REASON: "The sense I got was that one of his partners apparently wasn't enthusiastic about supporting 4e, and Clark was already a bit burnt out by the delay caused by the GSL negotiation, and therefore neither was all that thrilled to go ahead with the 4e projects, and those made up the bulk of the reasons for him to not go ahead with 4e projects."

I mean you basically asked me if I have stopped to consider the position I actually articulated that you are responded to!

It's one thing to accuse me of calling Clark a liar by accident. It's entirely another to then demonstrate you never even read fully what I wrote about it. Come on man, if you are going to slander me, at least do me the courtesy of reading the position you are slandering me over. I mean, it honestly baffles me that you could think I was calling Clark a liar.

Still, I think you should be more careful about insinuating people are lying without evidence to back it up. You never actually used that word but you have implied it several times now.

No, I have not, and I think YOU should be a heck of a lot more careful about accusing people of that without even bothering to read their entire post on the subject and with NO evidence whatsoever of it.

 

[Wicht]

I'm glad you don't think Clark is lying. You need to be more careful then about the tone of your posts.

When you say "Clark called out a clause in the GSL that said WOTC could change the GSL on their own, and seemed to make that the focus of his public reasons for not going ahead with the 4e projects. I suspect that may have played a role, but a smaller role that he seemed to emphasize in his reasoning," you seem to be saying that Clark is being less than forthright.

When you say, "So, I think either the real reasons are more the non-GSL related ones than the GSL issue," you appear to casual readers such as myself to be insinuating Clark is not giving us his real reasons.

When you say, "When a well known attorney in the field says the GSL is so flawed he wouldn't publish anything under it, it can influence other 3rd party publishers to not want to do it. But, if the primary reason is actually he just isn't much into 4e, that changes the tone of his opinion and possibly can change the mind of others who backed off based on his legal reasons," it not only mistakenly appears that you are insinuating that Clark did not give us his actual reasoning but one might be excused if they thought you were implying Clark was being a poor lawyer.

I am glad that none of that is true and apologize for misunderstanding the true meaning of your remarks and not reading you closely enough to realize I completely missed your point.

 

[S'mon]

Yes. They revoked at the end of the life cycle. Clark had no reasonable fear of 4e ending at the time he made his decision to not support 4e after the GSL changes he requested. None of his announced plans were even much more than 2 years into the life cycle of 4e, and most money is made shortly after publication and in the few months thereafter.

This was not a a real concern from a business perspective or a fans perspective. 90%+ of his sales on those products would have been completed well before any change due to an end of the GSL due to a 5e. So yes, precedent for them ending a license, but not good reasoning for ending your plans to publish 4e 3rd party products right after the GSL was fixed.

Well, as an IP and Contract lawyer myself this would make me very skittish, and Clark generally seems risk-averse when compared to other publishers like eg Joe Goodman or Jolly R Blackburn (Kenzer), both of whom chose to publish 4e-compatible product without the GSL, relying on the OGL and/or general IP law.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I agree with Wicht

Mistwell, I've seen the same stuff Wicht has seen in your posts. It's not just his imagination.

I'm glad to hear that you're not accusing Clark of lying. But I think you should take a hard look at your writing style, because it often seems as if you are.

Ken

 

[Pramas]

Clark was one of the people really supporting 4e. He was the one who really gave 4e and WotC a chance.

There were plenty of people who gave WotC a chance. A lot of chances, in fact, but the process dragged on and on and things kept changing. It became clear that this was a contentious issue within WotC itself and I think the GSL reflects that. At a certain point, many of us decided that even if things worked out this time, there was no guarantee the forces that opposed open gaming within WotC would simply concede the issue in the long term. This could have serious repercussions on our businesses at a later date, so many of us decided that this was the time to part ways with WotC and build up our own brands and properties. Looking at the post-GSL third party market and the success thereof, I do not regret that decision for a minute.

 

[Piratecat]

I've dropped Mistwell a PM; let's make sure the thread stays on track, please.

There were plenty of people who gave WotC a chance. A lot of chances, in fact, but the process dragged on and on and things kept changing. It became clear that this was a contentious issue within WotC itself and I think the GSL reflects that.

Extremely well stated. The GSL strikes me as being the results of many, many compromises, and as a result it ended up stifling what it hoped to encourage. I sat in on the initial conference call when WotC told 3pp publishers what their policy (well, the one they had at that time) was going to be; the written version was to have been in their hands within a month, and it wasn't finalized for more than a year.

I'd love more 3pp 4e stuff, but I'm not going to fault anyone for not wanting to bet their company on a license that can be easily revoked with short warning.

what I didn't see at the time was how DDI and the character builder were going to throttle 3pp development. That caught me by surprise.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Ddi

I didn't see the DDI coming either.

Who would have guessed that WoTC would come up with a piece of _software_ that was so awesome? It's the one thing I wish we had over in Paizo-Land.

And yeah, if I were running 4E, I'd have a very hard time justifying using stuff that wasn't in the DDI. That's a big reason there isn't more 3rd party 4E support, surely.

Ken

 

[ggroy]

If a fully functional DDI character builder computer program had been created back in 1999-2000 for 3E D&D that was fully embraced by D&D players and didn't allow any 3pp crunch, wonder if the d20 glut would have ever happened.

 

[ggroy]

what I didn't see at the time was how DDI and the character builder were going to throttle 3pp development. That caught me by surprise.

Many probably didn't anticipate this either back in 2008.

Fast forward to the present, WotC probably now sees the DDI character builder as a very useful "weapon in their arsenal" for tightly controlling the use of their D&D intellectual property, without ever having to make a strict 3PP license.

The management and legal eagles at WotC are most likely betting that for future editions of D&D, a fully function DDI character builder without any 3pp crunch and a useless SRD document will be just enough to keep tight control over any future 3pp D&D markets, even in the case where a future D&D 3pp license resembles the OGL.