Do you think it's too late now?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811)
No, but really, I don't care. I'm good for core books and usually one supplement on most games. I'm more interested in how the virtual tabletop is coming along.
Quote from: GameDaddy;234717Do you think it's too late now?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811
By far. It is also rather irrelevant at this point. The 3.x folks will be staying with Paizo and OGL games. The 4e folks will likely get only WotC product, in large part due to the dearth of 3rd party games using 4e rules. I mean, they are not saying just how much they plan on revising the GSL, which means a compliant company may have yet another delay in getting product out the door. A paranoid may even suspect that isn't accidental. ;)
The revisions could make the game more open, which is good for everyone, but will have the least impact on the bigger publishers as far as shipping product. WotC could make part of it more open, and another part less so. This would have a variable effect, depending on which part(s) any particular company would have to overhaul. Ranges from not much impact, to potentially starting over. They could even make it slightly more restrictive. While 'we listened and we are changing it' certainly sounds like they are moving toward a more open license, in the earliest stages, we were also led to believe it would practically be OGLv2, only better.
I find the announcement very vague. I wonder what they'll change. I know they were always unhappy with how the OGL played out.
With a little luck they'll tighten it and strangle themselves out of the market.
Quote from: David Johansen;234728I find the announcement very vague. I wonder what they'll change. I know they were always unhappy with how the OGL played out.
With a little luck they'll tighten it and strangle themselves out of the market.
I'm not sure how much more they can tighten it at this point. The more systems that will slip through their fingers, etc.
But it is pretty much 'you are locked into 4e until we say otherwise'. I'm not sure how much more restrictive they could make it, unless they start kidnapping people's families.
Quote from: StormBringer;234730I'm not sure how much more they can tighten it at this point. The more systems that will slip through their fingers, etc.
But it is pretty much 'you are locked into 4e until we say otherwise'. I'm not sure how much more restrictive they could make it, unless they start kidnapping people's families.
What's this? A longsword that does 1d10? Here's your daughter's finger! If you deviate from cannon again we'll be sending more of her back to you! :D
I will believe this when I see it. A string of promises and a disappointing finale is what happened with the GSL -- this could just be more damage control and corporate evasion to creat uncertainty among the 3rd party publishers.
Nevertheless, if the license gets a decent revision, that definitely counts as good news.
I'll be interested to see their fan site policy. Their 3e policy was completely laissez-faire; either they stick with that or the T$R analogies will start.
I think it's time for the carrot, rather than the stick. They can threaten to sue people into oblivion, but this isn't the bad old days - third party publishers now have money, lawyers, credibility, and fans, all thanks to the money they made off 3e supplements. What WotC should really consider doing is offering incentives to follow their publication guidelines, instead of trying to get companies to sign something that actually limits rights they already have, thanks to the uncopyrightable nature of game mechanics.
Or they could pull a Disney and try to get copyright law revised to suit their whims. Hasbro probably has the clout for that. That'd really screw up the board game industry, wouldn't it?
Quote from: pathar;234758Or they could pull a Disney and try to get copyright law revised to suit their whims. Hasbro probably has the clout for that. That'd really screw up the board game industry, wouldn't it?
Hmm, the problem is that making mathematical procedures copyrightable would have huge implications beyond the games industry. I think that expanding the scope of what counts as a game's artistic expression via eg the Scrabulous suit is their best hope.
Well, I'll just have to take a wait-n-see approach. Hopefully, it moves towards less restriction, but the cat is already sort of out the bag with folks just doing an end-around on the GSL.
Over on tbp, GM Skarka suggested that this announcement may just be an attempt by WotC to blunt any negative publicity for 4E at the upcoming GenCon. Cynicism aside, I think he may be correct. WotC is being deliberately vague about exactly what they are going to change with the GSL in this announcement, which doesn't look good.
It'll make a difference as far as Necromancer Games is concerned, while they recently refused the GSL they have been hopeful of coming to an agreement. Orcus has been talking to the guys and said that he is optimistic that it will be resolved.
Quote from: GrayPumpkin;234819It'll make a difference as far as Necromancer Games is concerned, while they recently refused the GSL they have been hopeful of coming to an agreement. Orcus has been talking to the guys and said that he is optimistic that it will be resolved.
My guess is that he's one of (if not
the) "valued colleagues" mentioned in WotC's announcement. This is why I think the revision will be a loosening up of restrictions. It matters to me because I would like to see some third party products out there for 4e. A lot of really good d20 products came from those companies.
This is good news. If the GSL become more win-win, then I see less of a need for people do the run around.
I want to be able to put the D&D Logo on the front cover of the print product. More than anything, that's my concern.
Quote from: Spinachcat;234881This is good news. If the GSL become more win-win, then I see less of a need for people do the run around.
I want to be able to put the D&D Logo on the front cover of the print product. More than anything, that's my concern.
I doubt that is going to happen in any case. While the license may become more open, I am thinking they still want a way to distinguish between their products and 3rd party.
Quoted from another board and quite accurate, I thought:
QuoteTo me this sounds a lot like...
WotC: "It's my sandbox and if you want to play in it, I make all the rules."
Rest of the Gaming Community: "C'mon guys, let's go find another sandbox."
WotC: "What?!? Wait! Ummmm...I was just kidding, see! I didn't mean it. C'mon back and play with me!!!!"
90% of why I don't have 4e or made an effort to read it has to do with the GSL and my general disgust with WotC.
Normally, I wouldn't think this has anything to do with the market at large, but now I'm wondering if I'm part of a larger minority than I thought.
Unlikely, admittedly, but I like to pretend.
Quote from: S'mon;234779Hmm, the problem is that making mathematical procedures copyrightable would have huge implications beyond the games industry. I think that expanding the scope of what counts as a game's artistic expression via eg the Scrabulous suit is their best hope.
Sadly the boundaries of logic and reason have historically have very little to do with copyright law in this day and age.
Quote from: StormBringer;234730The more systems that will slip through their fingers, etc.
So what?
Seanchai
Quote from: GrayPumpkin;234819It'll make a difference as far as Necromancer Games is concerned, while they recently refused the GSL they have been hopeful of coming to an agreement. Orcus has been talking to the guys and said that he is optimistic that it will be resolved.
You know Orcus just bought one of those novelty mood dice and rolls it every few hours to see how he feels about any particular subject, right? One minute he's hopeful, the next he's dishearted, then he's hopeful again, then he's not using GSL, then he's hopeful again...Rinse and repeat.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;235138So what?
Seanchai
I will posit that WotC would have had to invest a good deal more money shortly after 3.0 than they did, which could have been problematic for them. Further, this turn of events was blunted, at least in part, because of the OGL. The current group seems to think that publishers in the early 2000s jumped on only because it was D&D.
Quote from: StormBringer;234885I doubt that is going to happen in any case. While the license may become more open, I am thinking they still want a way to distinguish between their products and 3rd party.
They could still distinguish it completely. The WotC products use the top banner and they could have the 3P use that box logo on the lower left or lower right.
D20 was a visual brand that people saw while browsing covers. Without a comparable front cover logo, what's the point of getting on the GSL? The Kenzer solution gives you a front cover advertising option.
Quote from: StormBringer;235171I will posit that WotC would have had to invest a good deal more money shortly after 3.0 than they did, which could have been problematic for them.
Invest in what?
They do seem awful cash poor. I'm sure owning the biggest IP in the history of the industry has been a detriment to their cash flow.
That aside, I admit, I am curious to see what the changes will be.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;235227Invest in what?
They do seem awful cash poor. I'm sure owning the biggest IP in the history of the industry has been a detriment to their cash flow.
That aside, I admit, I am curious to see what the changes will be.
Seanchai
Invest in all the supplements that have historically been a drag on any company. Mr. Dancey said it himself, core books make money, supplements slowly bleed a company dry. Among the other problems TSR faced, supplement bloat can't be discounted. If WotC had to singlehandedly produce all the products that were engendered by the OGL, I have a feeling it would have been TSR all over again, except there wouldn't be another company out there to save the product lines. Hasbro would have moved some people around, then sat on the IP.
Again, the current folks over there seem to think all the 3rd parties jumped into the d20 market only because of the D&D brand, and that brand is strong enough to overcome the negatives of the GSL. They should have already known from reactions to early announcements, but they are finding out the hard way and backpedalling like Lance Armstrong on crack.
Quote from: StormBringer;235230Invest in all the supplements that have historically been a drag on any company.
I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense. If all the supplements created a drag on TSR, then TSR's consumer base wasn't buying them. And if the consumer base wasn't buying them, then why would WotC need to produce such supplements to make 3e successful?
To my recollection, Dancey said he wanted third party publishers to publish modules because they hadn't been profitable for TSR/WotC, not that such modules were necessary for the success of 3e.
Quote from: StormBringer;235230They should have already known from reactions to early announcements, but they are finding out the hard way and backpedalling like Lance Armstrong on crack.
Let's see what the change is before we decide they're backpedaling. Thus far what we know about the change is that there will be a change (unless something more has been said on EnWorld). The change could be something done, for example, as a reaction to KenzerCo's Kalamar PDF and not the lack of GSL signees...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;235243I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense. If all the supplements created a drag on TSR, then TSR's consumer base wasn't buying them. And if the consumer base wasn't buying them, then why would WotC need to produce such supplements to make 3e successful?
To my recollection, Dancey said he wanted third party publishers to publish modules because they hadn't been profitable for TSR/WotC, not that such modules were necessary for the success of 3e.
No, I don't recall him saying that, either. What I am extrapolating is that all the other products were free advertising for WotC that would have cost them bundles had they undertaken it themselves. I am peering back through the foggy parts of my memory to claim that Mr Dancey said there was about one supplement book sold for every four or five core books. I think at one point he posted at some length regarding efficiency between the evergreen core books, and the churn of supplements. I recall being somewhat annoyed at the time over the seeming attitude of leaving the 'crumbs' to third party folks. Looks like that one worked out better than I thought it would.
But it wasn't just the supplements that caused TSR problems. Some sold very well. Their primary problem with supplements was a lack of focus from having too many different lines. If WotC had wanted that kind of diversity, or the diversity provided by 3rd parties, they would have gone bankrupt.
ADDENDUM: TSR was not the shining exemplar of good business practice, of course, but at the time, no one could say whether or not WotC would hit the same pitfalls. If they had felt that the supplements were necessary, but simply mismanaged, they very well could have gone off the rails. From the perspective of history, I think Mr. Dancey had a pretty good idea of how to run things, but good ideas don't always survive committee.
QuoteLet's see what the change is before we decide they're backpedaling. Thus far what we know about the change is that there will be a change (unless something more has been said on EnWorld). The change could be something done, for example, as a reaction to KenzerCo's Kalamar PDF and not the lack of GSL signees...
Seanchai
Fair enough.
Quote from: StormBringer;235245What I am extrapolating is that all the other products were free advertising for WotC that would have cost them bundles had they undertaken it themselves.
Except they don't really need to spend money on advertising, now or then. They already have free advertising by virtue of own biggest RPG IP on the planet. When they put out a new edition, geeks notice.
I mean, we're both participating in the other thread about how terrible the advertising campaign was and yet 4e has already gone through two print runs (which, yes, were actually sizable), made the top 5 on Amazon, made the New York Times bestseller's list, etc..
Quote from: StormBringer;235245But it wasn't just the supplements that caused TSR problems.
Yeah, it was the book trade that did the company in.
The bloat issue certainly wasn't helpful, but it is the business models that, oh, 95% of the companies in the industry follow. White Wolf, for example, has managed to hang on there for a few years despite being perhaps the epitome of supplement bloat...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;235385Except they don't really need to spend money on advertising, now or then. They already have free advertising by virtue of own biggest RPG IP on the planet. When they put out a new edition, geeks notice.
I mean, we're both participating in the other thread about how terrible the advertising campaign was and yet 4e has already gone through two print runs (which, yes, were actually sizable), made the top 5 on Amazon, made the New York Times bestseller's list, etc..
'Advertising' was probably an unclear choice of words on my part. I was thinking more of 'support', as a way of marketing the product. The amount and variety of supplements available shortly after 3.0 came out, because of the 3rd party support, gave 3.0 the instant appeal of being well supported. In my view, that softened the loss of supplements people had purchased for 2e when switching over, plus it allowed all those people burned by TSR to finally get their contributions out there, which fostered a sense of community. The GSL is undermining that, even if it is only percieved that way. There are still questions on ENWorld about fansites, for example. WotC is marketing the lisence to known publishers, which is about the exact opposite of the intent of the OGL. In fact, most of those publishers wouldn't be around today without the OGL.
As to the NYT Best Seller list, Lizard has made a point elsewhere that the criteria for inclusion has changed, and was never just 'units sold' to begin with*. As I recall, he says Mr Dancey claims that both 3.0 and 3.5 made enough sales to be on the list, but the NYT didn't list things like D&D at that time.
QuoteYeah, it was the book trade that did the company in.
The bloat issue certainly wasn't helpful, but it is the business models that, oh, 95% of the companies in the industry follow. White Wolf, for example, has managed to hang on there for a few years despite being perhaps the epitome of supplement bloat...
Seanchai
White Wolf supplements are fairly interchangable, however. You can use the Werewolf rules and supplements along side your Mage rules and supplements. Once you have Forgotten Realms, the Dark Sun supplements are fairly useless. There are no system barriers to putting Dark Sun on the other side of Abeir Toril, but how many campaigns settings would the average DM want to bolt on like that? Planescape appears to be their attempt for a more universal supplement to tie the others together. The 'hub' level, if you will, to send characters to any other campaign setting.
So, the bloat was one facet, the lack of cohesion was the underlying problem. If the supplements and campaign settings were as easily interchangable as WW, we could very well have been buying TSR's Magic: the Gathering today.
Well, ok, no. The management fuckups were too big to overcome. Barring those, however, I think there could have been a very different trajectory for TSR. The OGL freed WotC from having to follow the splintered supplements model and exert even greater effort to bring them under one roof. With all the other supplements coming out, they could more or less sit back and release Forgotten Realms at their liesure, with time to polish it to a high shine.
*
I assume the reasoning is that if they didn't filter out certain books, things like college textbooks would dominate the list three or four times a year, and certainly the Bible would be in the top 5 in perpetuity.
Quote from: StormBringer;235403I was thinking more of 'support', as a way of marketing the product. The amount and variety of supplements available shortly after 3.0 came out, because of the 3rd party support, gave 3.0 the instant appeal of being well supported.
While I do agree with you that gamers like games they feel are supported, I'm not sure gamers expect instant support for games. I think you're right that instant support is definitely a plus, I'm just not sure it would have been a deal-breaker for prospective 3e buyers or that it was something WotC
needed for 3e. I mean, they certainly don't have it for 4e and 4e is selling like hotcakes.
Quote from: StormBringer;235403As to the NYT Best Seller list, Lizard has made a point elsewhere that the criteria for inclusion has changed, and was never just 'units sold' to begin with*.
It sounds like it's still units sold to actual buyers (not just to distributors) - it's just that some books are excluded.
Quote from: StormBringer;235403White Wolf supplements are fairly interchangable, however. You can use the Werewolf rules and supplements along side your Mage rules and supplements.
Not really. A Mage supplement isn't going to do you much good at all unless you have also purchased the Mage core rulebook. And in that case, you're not really buying a supplement for Werewolf, you're buying a supplement for your Mage book, you're just going to use it in a Werewolf game.
Quote from: StormBringer;235403So, the bloat was one facet, the lack of cohesion was the underlying problem.
But, like supplement bloat, that's something other publishers content with as well. You can't just grab a random Mage supplement and use it in your Werewolf game unless you also have the Mage corebook. You won't understand how the special rules work, won't know what a Son of Ether or Silver Ladder is meant to be, won't understand the rotes, etc..
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;235427While I do agree with you that gamers like games they feel are supported, I'm not sure gamers expect instant support for games. I think you're right that instant support is definitely a plus, I'm just not sure it would have been a deal-breaker for prospective 3e buyers or that it was something WotC needed for 3e. I mean, they certainly don't have it for 4e and 4e is selling like hotcakes.
Perhaps they don't expect it, but the OGL certainly delivered it. Additionally, it was a good deal easier to convert from 2e, so the investment in supplements wasn't made obsolete. Also, 4e has a fairly aggressive release schedule for supplements already, including Forgotten Realms, and several splats before the end of the year. I am sure someone will produce a list, but I don't recall the 3.0 release schedule being nearly as aggressive.
QuoteIt sounds like it's still units sold to actual buyers (not just to distributors) - it's just that some books are excluded.
I think the major point was that 3.x would have been on the bestseller's list as well, if the NYT hadn't excluded it.
QuoteNot really. A Mage supplement isn't going to do you much good at all unless you have also purchased the Mage core rulebook. And in that case, you're not really buying a supplement for Werewolf, you're buying a supplement for your Mage book, you're just going to use it in a Werewolf game.
But, like supplement bloat, that's something other publishers content with as well. You can't just grab a random Mage supplement and use it in your Werewolf game unless you also have the Mage corebook. You won't understand how the special rules work, won't know what a Son of Ether or Silver Ladder is meant to be, won't understand the rotes, etc..
I dunno, they still follow a pretty recognizable pattern. Essence in one game is Rage in the other is Arete in the next and so on. Or something, I haven't dug my books out in a while.
To the point, for the most part, no: a Mage supplement isn't going to fit perfectly with your Werewolf game. I think they are similar enough to work with little difficulty. My original presumption was that you would have the Werewolf and Mage corebooks anyway. There is no easy analogy with D&D, except maybe 3.5 core and Iron Heroes and a couple of supplements for each. Iron Heroes does things significantly differently, but it's not a completely different game. You can use the IH supplements with a bit of fiddling sans the Iron Heroes book.
I think the supplement bloat with WW is a different beast than with AD&D 2nd or 3.x. In neither case is it a central selling point, but in both cases, I think it helps, and they both would have suffered had they not existed.
Quote from: StormBringer;235436Perhaps they don't expect it, but the OGL certainly delivered it. Additionally, it was a good deal easier to convert from 2e, so the investment in supplements wasn't made obsolete.
True and true.
Quote from: StormBringer;235436I am sure someone will produce a list, but I don't recall the 3.0 release schedule being nearly as aggressive.
I recall the opposite. If anything, the 4e release schedule seems a tad slow. I guess they're supplementing it this go 'round with minis and tiles.
Quote from: StormBringer;235436I think the major point was that 3.x would have been on the bestseller's list as well, if the NYT hadn't excluded it.
Okay. But a) it got there without third party support and b) 4e also sold out larger runs, etc..
Quote from: StormBringer;235436I dunno, they still follow a pretty recognizable pattern.
There's definitely a pattern, but what does The Abyss of the Mind do? What can a mage do with Life 1 and Forces 2? You can't know that stuff unless you've a core rulebook.
Quote from: StormBringer;235436There is no easy analogy with D&D...
Sure there is: A Greyhawk module being used in a Forgotten Realms game.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;235657I recall the opposite. If anything, the 4e release schedule seems a tad slow. I guess they're supplementing it this go 'round with minis and tiles.
I may be subconsciously padding my 4e estimates with the minis. On the other hand, 4e already has the second set of core books scheduled. I will grant, however, that there were no original plans for 3e to have a PHBII. I recall some of the early supplements coming out fairly quickly, but they were rather sparse, too. Sword & Fist weighs in at 96 pages, which is rather scant for an initial offering.
I could very well be misremembering, I will have to dig up a timeline of releases for 3.0.
QuoteOkay. But a) it got there without third party support and b) 4e also sold out larger runs, etc..
I have no way of showing 3rd party support contributed to sales, but I don't think the figures are out there anywhere to show one way or the other. I will concede that 3rd party support certainly wasn't critical to 3.0 sales.
According to an unnamed source on the Acaeum (http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html), "
In 1989, TSR sold something like 1,000,000 copies of the D&D boxed set in one year." and "I think they're selling at least 150,000 to 200,000 Players Handbooks per year (probably more with the 3.5 release)." It doesn't say when the email from the anonymous employee was recieved, however. I would imagine 4e sales will be at least in that same ballpark, but I will wait for the final figures.
QuoteThere's definitely a pattern, but what does The Abyss of the Mind do? What can a mage do with Life 1 and Forces 2? You can't know that stuff unless you've a core rulebook.
Sure there is: A Greyhawk module being used in a Forgotten Realms game.
Sure, like I said, it isn't a perfect match. As each new 'game' was released, it had guidelines on how to use previous rules, and how to use those rules with the previous set. They were a rough fit using the current rules, of course, so the details of a particular splat would be somewhat meaningless. But still useable; Abyss of the Mind can be emulated with Obfuscation, if you don't have the Mage book, or don't care to have Mages as a recurring part of the campaign. What the actual rules are is kind of irrelevant, again, if you aren't going to use Mages or get the core book. In fact, I would posit that those blurbs were a bit of guerrilla marketing for their other products.
I would say a Greyhawk module would fit more easily into a Forgotten Realms campaign without the Greyhawk material than the Vampire/Mage combo. Most of the modules were designed to be pretty setting agnostic. It might have mentioned the Grand Duchy of Geoff, or some activity in the Pomarj, but those are easily filed off. If WotC had released a "D&D:Humans" then a "D&D:Elves" and so on, that would probably be a closer fit.