Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Twowolves]

Nevermind the fact that 3rd party guys had to see the GSL/4th ed rules by around Jan 08 to get product in and out of the pipeline by Gen Con 08, and WotC didn't get it to them. 4th ed launched in April and no final GSL. For smaller publishers, Gen Con makes or breaks your year, and skipping a year just isn't an option for a lot of them. Necro/Clark is in a position to survive a skip like that, but they shouldn't have had to.

By the time the GSL was revised, it was what, 2 years after it needed to be done in order for NG to get any use from it? Yeah, they could start now, but Clark has already stated that for his home game, the 4th ed ship has set sail without him and he's playing Pathfinder in his home game. It remains to be seen what, if any, product NG will put out for PRPG.

 

[Sammael]

Remember that WoTC did revoke the d20 STM license in the run-up to 4e, so there is recent precedent for them revoking a free license like the GSL. Certainly it seems likely they'll revoke the GSL in the run-up to 5e.

IIRC, they gave the publishers a relatively reasonable time frame to sell their d20 STL stock, but all unsold stock after that date had to be destroyed (which I think is unreasonable - it's OK to forbid new products and future printings, but destroying products is something I very much dislike).

 

[Voadam]

In my opinion, the GSL turned out just fine, and Clark got the bulk of what he wanted from the changes.

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.

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. Here is why I think that:

1) Most licenses that involve no money coming from the licensee have such clauses. The OGL didn't, but that was an exception rather than the rule. In the "real world", licenses where the licesee pays nothing usually have that clause, and Clark's probably drafted and/or approved of such clauses for his clients;

To my knowledge Clark has never personally chosen to publish under a license other than the OGL.

2) the clause is almost never used and is just an emergency safety measure in case of very rare unexpected consequences of a "Oh My God they published Child Porn with our name on it" nature. In my experience, it's not used to mess with licensees, and there is little to no incentive to do so;

WotC first changed their analogous d20 STL one due to D&D porn book, and then later claimed they were shutting the whole thing down and giving everyone a deadline to get rid of everything with the d20 logo.

3) even if WOTC ever did change the GSL, it would likely be done in a manner which would have little to no impact on Necro's publishing plans. In addition, there is even plenty of defense to argue that anything already published would be covered by the old GSL anyway;

Except for getting rid of all of the stuff after the GSL is revoked. Necromancer went through this with both their print and pdf products at the end of the d20 STL.

4) given what Clark knows about how much attention WOTC is paying to the GSL, he probably knows nobody is even thinking about the possibility of changing it, and probably nobody is even assigned the task anymore of thinking about those sorts of things. The GSL is just totally off their radar;

And likely won't be changed until they decide to kill off everything 4e GSL the way they did OGL d20 logo stuff. Then it will probably be similar to the d20 logo period.

5) Had Necro gone ahead with their 4e plans after the GSL was changed due to Clark's influence, almost all the money they would have made on those titles they would have already made in that year and a half (?), and during that time WOTC never used the clause.

Presuming they had done all the work beforehand gambling things would turn out to their satisfaction they could have jumped on it when the license was revised to their satisfaction. I believe though they were holding off on doing serious work on any projects until they got the license stuff settled.

[/QUOTE]So, I think either the real reasons are more the non-GSL related ones than the GSL issue. Maybe the GSL issue played a small role in his decision, but I bet the bulk of the reason is not related to the GSL, but other matters.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mistwell]

Remember that WoTC did revoke the d20 STM license in the run-up to 4e, so there is recent precedent for them revoking a free license like the GSL. Certainly it seems likely they'll revoke the GSL in the run-up to 5e.

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.

 

[Mistwell]

To my knowledge Clark has never personally chosen to publish under a license other than the OGL.

Clark is a lawyer with Intellectual Property experience. He writes and reviews and edits such clauses fairly often I suspect. So, it's not like he is unaware that most licenses where the licensee pays nothing for the license also have a clause similar to the one I mentioned, regardless of whether he has personally published under such a clause.

WotC first changed their analogous d20 STL one due to D&D porn book, and then later claimed they were shutting the whole thing down and giving everyone a deadline to get rid of everything with the d20 logo.

Yes, the porn type change is the kind I mentioned that would never impact a product Clark puts out, and the primary reason for such clauses to begin with. The second one was the end of the life cycle of 3e that I mentioned above. Neither is the kind of change that would impact any of Necro's originally announced 4e plans.

Except for getting rid of all of the stuff after the GSL is revoked. Necromancer went through this with both their print and pdf products at the end of the d20 STL.

Again, as noted above, this is not very relevant to the plans Necro had announced for 4e. The life cycle of those products for the most part would be done before 4e is done.

And likely won't be changed until they decide to kill off everything 4e GSL the way they did OGL d20 logo stuff. Then it will probably be similar to the d20 logo period.

Yes. See above.

Presuming they had done all the work beforehand gambling things would turn out to their satisfaction they could have jumped on it when the license was revised to their satisfaction. I believe though they were holding off on doing serious work on any projects until they got the license stuff settled.

He got the license stuff settled. The only remaining clause bugging him is the one we are discussing, which I think I have made a pretty good argument to outline why that clause would not have had any realistic business or fan based impact on Necro's initial 4e plans.

 

[Treebore]

Clark is a lawyer with Intellectual Property experience. He writes and reviews and edits such clauses fairly often I suspect. So, it's not like he is unaware that most licenses where the licensee pays nothing for the license also have a clause similar to the one I mentioned, regardless of whether he has personally published under such a clause.



Yes, the porn type change is the kind I mentioned that would never impact a product Clark puts out, and the primary reason for such clauses to begin with. The second one was the end of the life cycle of 3e that I mentioned above. Neither is the kind of change that would impact any of Necro's originally announced 4e plans.



Again, as noted above, this is not very relevant to the plans Necro had announced for 4e. The life cycle of those products for the most part would be done before 4e is done.



Yes. See above.



He got the license stuff settled. The only remaining clause bugging him is the one we are discussing, which I think I have made a pretty good argument to outline why that clause would not have had any realistic business or fan based impact on Necro's initial 4e plans.

Also things change with time. Back when Clark was willing to support 4E he liked 4E as his system, as was posted lately, he has gone back to 3E. So now neither primary owner of Necromancer likes 4E as "their" system. So now they are going to continue on supporting a system they do like, which is 3E/Pathfinder.

To be clear to 4E lovers, this is just a statement of system preference, so please, no one jump on this for a new edition war.

 

[coyote6]

To be clear to 4E lovers, this is just a statement of system preference, so please, no one jump on this for a new edition war.

New Edition?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUq6N7Gx1c]Did someone say New Edition?[/ame]

 

[Qualidar]

New Edition?

Did someone say New Edition?

Now that means WAR!!

 

[D'karr]

Now that means WAR!!

Did you say WAR?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iffDvXTcm8&a=wgAZDXHDoVI&playnext_from=ML]YouTube - War - Low Rider[/ame]

 

[Greg V]

Bill Webb has stated on the Necromancer Games boards that the Slumbering Tsar series as a Pathfinder RPG release is a go. Announcement and details forthcoming.