Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[ggroy]

I'm going by past precedence. A lot of the big name designers came from their prior work, not because of the specific system used. Two major cases in point: Warren Spector came to TSR after doing some kick-ass design work for Steve Jackson Games and others. Monte Cook came to TSR after a lot of work on Rolemaster.

And if you, as you say, can't prove it "one way or the other", why do people constantly bring up that the OGL is what "created" Mike Mearls?! If my view is suspect, isn't the opposite the same? Past precedent even shows that it's not the system used that matters, but the skill of the designer.

Wonder how much of the decisions to hire is based on more mundane stuff like:

- ability to meet deadlines
- writing clearly
- personal connections
- does not demand too high of a salary
- ability to work with other people
- references from previous employers
- portfolio of previous works

 

[Wicht]

Talent is all well and good but there's a lot to be said for being in the right place at the right time. The OGL created opportunities to get recognized. While I've never brought Mearls up myself in an arguement for the OGL, I suspect that those who do are doing so because it is what actually happened.

To wonder if Mearls would have been as successful without the OGL is akin to specualting about the success of Lincoln if there had been no civil war. Interesting speculation but ultimately pointless. History is the intersection of events and personality. Events are shaped by personalities but so too are people shaped by events. We cannot study the one without recognizing the importance of the other.

 

[Steel_Wind]

But that's the thing...D&D was ALREADY the standard in the RPG marketplace. Even during the dark days before WOTC's buying TSR, the D&D game (and engine) ate up the majority of the market.

No. It didn't. It had vanished from the marketplace - and had been absent from distrbutors buy lists for quite some time. As a game played by gamers, D&D was a brand with a long history and damaged goodwill, yes.

But as a commercial product as a going concern? D&D wasn't on life support - D&D was DEAD.

The days of "printer problems" were dark and dank my friend. They were F'ugly. Retailers had no new product to sell for nearly a year. The distribution channel had been interrupted and the entire commercial side of the game had to be shocked back to life.

Prior to that, the Internet had shocked TSR's lawyers to go to war and issue cease and desist letters against its own fans, left right and centre through the late 90s, too. A lot of fans HATED that brand and hated T$R, too. A lot of them with good reason, I would say.

2nd Edition ended up as a monumental commercial FAILURE. Yes, with caps. FAILURE. Dead company and a wrecked brand with an incredibly damaged goodwill amongst its own fans.

Magic:TG had destroyed D&D's new player acquisition model and there was no plan in place to restore the influx of new players upn which the solvency of the whole depended. The best plan Dancey and Adkinson came up with was a means to entice all the lapsed D&D players who were playing some other RPG or game to rush back to the brand en masse in order to give the brand time to acquire new teenage players, too. That was a BIG COLOSSAL roll of the dice. They managed to roll a 20 -- but that was a consequence of good management, great marketing, solid design and the D20/OGL license. It was not a matter of predestiny.

You are seeing success after the fact, ignoring the intervening disaster that was the CAUSE of the sale of TSR to WotC -- and projecting success on the whole over a course of years. You are treating the events which triggered the end of TSR as a mere speedbump along the road over the course of the game's history.

It appears that way now only in hindsight - and only after the benefit of a hugely successful 3rd Edition of the game. Take away that success and D&D could have died for good as a commercial enterprise.

Yes. It really could have gone another way.

 

[Votan]

I'm just skeptical that say d20 Conan does more for WOTC than say GURPS Conan.

My view has to do with the complexity of role playing games. Modern RPGs have fairly complicated mechanics and figuring them out can take a fair amount of time. This can act as a barrier to entry. When much of the market uses the d20 riles, they become extremely familiar and ensure that the general ideas of your product line are more widely taught.

So they combine the brand advantage of Dungeons and Dragons with the best known and widely used mechanics as well.

I'd see this as a good deal.

 

[ggroy]

My view has to do with the complexity of role playing games. Modern RPGs have fairly complicated mechanics and figuring them out can take a fair amount of time. This can act as a barrier to entry.

Figuring out a new ruleset usually isn't a major problem with many gamers who have been playing for a long time.

It may take longer for a newbie or inexperienced player to figure out a new set of complicated mechanics.

 

[M.L. Martin]

The days of "printer problems" were dark and dank my friend. They were F'ugly. Retailers had no new product to sell for nearly a year. The distribution channel had been interrupted and the entire commercial side of the game had to be shocked back to life.

And yet, during that timeframe, it only slipped from the #1 position on the RPG sales lists for one month--when WW released the revised Vampire: The Masquerade.

 

[Steel_Wind]

And yet, during that timeframe, it only slipped from the #1 position on the RPG sales lists for one month--when WW released the revised Vampire: The Masquerade.

Being "first" when nobody is selling anything is like being the only channel on TV and being first in your time slot when practically nobody is watching and there isn't a single advertiser paying for a commercial.

You're not getting it.

 

[JohnRTroy]

D&D was a brand with a long history and damaged goodwill, yes.

But as a commercial product as a going concern? D&D wasn't on life support - D&D was DEAD.

Was it truly a commercial failure though? It may not have had as much success as the 1st Edition did, but it was still at the top of the marketplace. The fact that they couldn't manage their debt doesn't seem to have been a failure based on selling product, but poor planning of various factors and competition from games like CCGs.

And the Internet fiasco's I think were minor and didn't really affect the bottom line. I think people are seeing the d20/OGL as the main factor for its success, rather than just an attribute of several factors.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Was it truly a commercial failure though? It may not have had as much success as the 1st Edition did, but it was still at the top of the marketplace. The fact that they couldn't manage their debt doesn't seem to have been a failure based on selling product, but poor planning of various factors and competition from games like CCGs.

Their player acquisition model was dead in the water. Yes, the product line based upon selling people some rule books and making all of their money on settings and modules was a commercial failure.

 

[Jadeite]

Their player acquisition model was dead in the water. Yes, the product line based upon selling people some rule books and making all of their money on settings and modules was a commercial failure.

Seems to work rather well for Paizo.