Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Primal]

Paizo rolled the dice and (by equally anecdotal accounts) succeeded beyond their best-case scenario.

Not just by anecdotal evidence -- according to ICV2 (and I personally think it's a pretty reliable source on retailer sales) Pathfinder has been #2 in sales rank after its release. Now, that's only short-term information -- and I'm very interested to see how it does in the future, especially when other "hot" titles will be released -- but it does show that Pathfinder outranked, for example, WFRP 3E and WoD in sales.

 

[JohnRTroy]

For all the OGL detractors out there, please read the above post again. Even if you're not a Paizo customer, you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer who isn't or who hasn't heard about the quality of their products, or a 4E fan who hasn't wished for Paizo-developed 4E content.

IMO, if the only benefit derived from the OGL was to enable Paizo to exist in its current form, then the OGL was a smashing success.

Well, my "detractions" aren't really detractions, per se, just criticisms.

I never said the OGL wasn't good for some companies. Clearly, for some companies, it did good, like James Jacobs says. For Paizo, the OGL is really what kept them in business.

But the key thing is, I noticed that the business people describing it are describing it from a business and economic perspective. This is where my criticisms come in. When talking about the OGL, there seem to be two main perspectives, similar to the differences between the free software and open source views. Free software people believe in the ideological value of supporting it, while open source advocates believe in it for economic and other reasons. Based on the behavior I see on-line, I find the former perspective a little naive and bordering on the Fanatical, and the latter much more even and pragmatic.

Similarly, when OGL seems to come up there are two perspectives. There are people who believe in the ideology--they think releasing OGL is superior, is what should be done, etc. This seems to be what most of the game FANS think.

Then there are the various businesses. They are more pragmatic--they have to be. They support the OGL not so much for ideologies, but because it makes sense. But then again, the OGL is not needed for every game. Like Green Ronin, if Paizo makes a new game, does that mean it's automatically going to be OGL? It will probably depend on things.

I mean my own view, I am more or less ambivalent about the whole thing. If the OGL is a success or failure, I don't care, but that doesn't mean it's 100% good or 100% bad. I think it did some good, but I have doubts about it's long term benefits or whether or not it is an overall net positive for the industry. And I think some of the proponents--coming from the fan perspective--have trouble seeing this.

A recent article I saw talked about the various economic factors between closed and open:

The tradeoff between open and closed cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog

If you think the OGL is cool, that's fine. But if you want to debate things like economic effects and benefits and things that usually can be measured like how it affected retailers, businesses, etc., I think a more critical eye is needed, and I think we need to remove emotional attachment to an ideological stance when discussing these items. For example, was WoTC really "misguided" for removing it, or does having a more closed network lead to more success in the long term?

 

[Mark]

Not just by anecdotal evidence -- according to ICV2 (and I personally think it's a pretty reliable source on retailer sales) Pathfinder has been #2 in sales rank after its release. Now, that's only short-term information -- and I'm very interested to see how it does in the future, especially when other "hot" titles will be released -- but it does show that Pathfinder outranked, for example, WFRP 3E and WoD in sales.

Do WFRP 3E and WoD sell as much online through their own site relative to the retail channels in comparison to Paizo? Granted an answer of "no" would only make your data even more impressive but I am curious nonetheless.

 

[Elton Robb]

So you're basiucally arguing that WOTC should be happy that giving up basically control of its house system should be seen as a positive when it does NOT lead to an increase in their bottom line?

Actually, WotC can make more money if it did give up control of its house system. I think they should pass 4e completely into the public domain and do what they always do.

I'm fine with Eberron and Forgotten Realms (and Dark Sun) locked up in Intellectual Monopolies for a while. But the basic framework, 4e, should be passed into the public domain or licensed under CC. And that means all of it.

Wizards of the Coast can enjoy being at the top again because everyone will be exposed to D&D. Generic items can be released under CC, while World Specific ones can be kept with a copyright. And after a few years, the 4th edition of those worlds can pass into the public domain while Wizards works on the 5th edition.

More and more people will be able to create the derivative works they've always wanted. I mean, I really wanted to create derivative works with the Kalashtar, Warforged, and say what not. But Wizards of the Coast had them locked up tight in copyrights and fear and reality holds me back from writing these derivatives.

In effect, I terrorize myself. I really do think Wizards would benefit a lot if they did that. A lot of us will have our fear released and we can write again and build on what Wizards had created with 4e. to be honest, Wizards of the Coast has shot themselves in the foot a couple of times.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Actually, WotC can make more money if it did give up control of its house system. I think they should pass 4e completely into the public domain and do what they always do.

That would be incredibly stupid. The market leader releasing things into the public domain makes no economic sense whatsoever. Even market leaders with a progressive view don't do it until it has little value (for instance, id Sofware releases the engine as Open Source only after they've got a new solid technology in place).

Wizards of the Coast can enjoy being at the top again because everyone will be exposed to D&D. Generic items can be released under CC, while World Specific ones can be kept with a copyright. And after a few years, the 4th edition of those worlds can pass into the public domain while Wizards works on the 5th edition.

First of all, the worlds are edition independent, so releasing FR or Greyhawk to the public would be an act that wouldn't make sense if WoTC did that. And if they decided not to use those worlds, I'd rather they be released to Ed Greenwood and Gail Gygax rather than given to the public, as they could then get more money.

Wizards of the Coast had them locked up tight in copyrights and fear and reality holds me back from writing these derivatives.

In effect, I terrorize myself. I really do think Wizards would benefit a lot if they did that.

You are free to create. You just can't publish or sell your creation. This is the key thing OGL proponents ignore. We ALWAYS had the freedom to create, with the only limits on publishing.

I heard a variation of this old saying. Goodwill + The Price of a cup of coffee get you a cup of coffee. All the good will in the world doesn't help your bottom line. Gary Gygax had a lot of good will but it didn't translate into sales all the time. It's important to have good will, but you can't please everybody, and just because it's something fans would approve of, it may not make economic sense to do so.

If you're a free culture advocate, simply support those that follow your lead. But I find most of the FC advocates want more, they want to play with the "big toys" (Disney, WoTC, etc...) and not try to beat the leaders with their own ideologies. If the Free Culture movement wants to succeed, you should put your products out there to compete, not attempt to force the other companies to follow your ideology.

This is why I think 3e D&D was a success because it was D&D, not because of the OGL. The OGL may have helped but I doubt it was the sole or dominating factor.

 

[Jasperak]

That delicate satin draped frame?

Good to know I'm not the only one.

As it clung to her thigh.

You're not.

 

[Elton Robb]

That would be incredibly stupid. The market leader releasing things into the public domain makes no economic sense whatsoever. Even market leaders with a progressive view don't do it until it has little value (for instance, id Sofware releases the engine as Open Source only after they've got a new solid technology in place).

How would it be incredibly stupid? Why bite the hands that feed you?

You are free to create. You just can't publish or sell your creation. This is the key thing OGL proponents ignore. We ALWAYS had the freedom to create, with the only limits on publishing.

Ah, you've just listed the problem with Copyright right there in that paragraph. You've just said, not exactly, that Copyright grants a Monopoly over distribution. Dude.

 

[JohnRTroy]

How would it be incredibly stupid? Why bite the hands that feed you?

It's not "biting the hand that feeds you", it's more like owning a store and then deciding to give away all your products. It might me a nice thing to do, but it's likely going to make you broke. Even many OGL proponents wouldn't recommend using CC or Public Domain.

Economically, WoTC is in a good position, they are like Apple with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. What you are proposing makes it harder for them to win because you want to turn a market into what's called "perfect competition", which is the other end of a spectrum from a monopoly. Perfect competition has downsides, most importantly it prevents anybody from making any sort of profit.

I won't get into your anti-copyright stances, as I've said my opinions a lot on the subject, so I'll simply talk economics. The D&D game is not a monopoly since people can and do create other RPGs. The way to prevent it from becoming a monopoly is to support the alternatives. It's like Coke--Pepsi and other can compete but they can't copy the existing Coke formula.

I think a lot of free culture advocates ignore economic costs (as well as social and other costs). There's a reason why we had a dot-com bubble, and there's a reason why a lot of newspapers are starting to charge for on-line access, and why the DRM and other debates are so important. I fear a lot of people ignore these equations when advocating their positions.

I mean, as a human being with a moral compass, I would like Free Health Care for all humanity. But as an adult who studied economics and other subjects, I know that area is expensive (between research, time, labor, education, and equipment) that you can't get it that way, and even if you provide it too all, somebody has to foot the bill.

If you want the free culture to succeed, vote with your wallet and don't buy from the company. The moral stance should be to support games like Eclipse Phase if you believe that, and (most importantly) to make a sacrifice and go without. If WoTC see that people are support the competing game over theirs, if sales go down for WoTC AND there's evidence that piracy also goes down, then maybe it will have an impact. But I think there are too many people not willing to make the sacrifice.

 

[Psion]

MnM was a revelation to me. There was a long thread here about whether a really good superhero game was even possible under d20 rules, and the general conclusion was "nope." Steve, and GR, showed that conclusion to be absurdly wrong.

My contention at the time was (and remains) that you couldn't do it with the framework of the Class/Level system, the use of which was part of the terms for using the D20 logo. So I think calling it absurdly wrong is going a bit far considering it's technically correct.

I do agree there is something to be said for being familiar with fundamental aspects of the d20 system that were carried through to M&M, which may be the spirit of what you are saying.

 

[Psion]

For all the OGL detractors out there, please read the above post again. Even if you're not a Paizo customer, you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer who isn't or who hasn't heard about the quality of their products, or a 4E fan who hasn't wished for Paizo-developed 4E content.

I don't know if they did it hear, but one of the WotC employees put a put a post up on RPGnet saying (basically) "we hear people don't like our adventures, what can we do to be better?"

And the answers, even in those Paizo-bahsing halls, was mostly just "take notes from Pathfinder." I guarantee that even in these awkward circumstances, many 4e DMs out there are dipping into the Paizo well.