RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Scott,
This is a serious question, from somebody who hasn't kept up at all. When the Character Builder first came out, it was only for PCs. I have a Mac, and I will tell you that that, by itself, kept me from picking up 4th Edition. Do I presume correctly that somewhere in the last three or four years, they've created a Mac-native version of the software?
I'll dig out the book when I get home, but, IIRC, it was along these lines.Weapons had speeds from 3-6, the speed of the weapon was when you got your iterative attack. So a dagger with a speed of 3 would get 4 attacks at 10+ BAB (+10/+7/+4/+1) while the great sword would actually not get the 4th attack until BAB 19+ (+19/+13/+7/+1)
I don't remember if it capped at 4 attacks or not, which would make my hypothetical knife fighter as +20/+17/+14/+11/+8/+5/+2 (Sure the last two or three are going to miss)
Again, I'm running on memory. It doesn't 'gimp' big weapon damage as much as it boosts the knife fighters, giving them more chances to hit with lower damage weapons.
In other words: Nobody except the weakest wimps will use bigger weapons. If you're strong, you're better off with the quick weapons, since you get better attack bonuses for your attacks, and more attacks, meaning more chance to get your strength bonus to damage. And your feats. And your class abilities. And Power Attack.
Nice sentiment, but unless you're grossly misremembering, this isn't "restoring" any kind of weapon balance. It just switches things around, and the crappy weapons from before are the must-haves now.
|
Scott,
This is a serious question, from somebody who hasn't kept up at all. When the Character Builder first came out, it was only for PCs. I have a Mac, and I will tell you that that, by itself, kept me from picking up 4th Edition. Do I presume correctly that somewhere in the last three or four years, they've created a Mac-native version of the software?
They have, but just recently. The Character Builder is 100% online now, and works in the browser. Lots of folks don't like that, for various legitimate and sneaky reasons. It tempted me to go back, but Essentials didn't impress me, and I've been able to find good games in other systems anyway. WotC is going to have to do something fabulous to win me back, and the things they would need to do would cost them too much of their new fan base.
Scott,
This is a serious question, from somebody who hasn't kept up at all. When the Character Builder first came out, it was only for PCs. I have a Mac, and I will tell you that that, by itself, kept me from picking up 4th Edition. Do I presume correctly that somewhere in the last three or four years, they've created a Mac-native version of the software?
It is all web based now so I would think it would work as well on PC or Mac.
Scott,
This is a serious question, from somebody who hasn't kept up at all. When the Character Builder first came out, it was only for PCs. I have a Mac, and I will tell you that that, by itself, kept me from picking up 4th Edition. Do I presume correctly that somewhere in the last three or four years, they've created a Mac-native version of the software?
Yep, the Character Builder is now an online app that runs in your browser (and is pretty slick, for what it does). It will run on most major browsers on both Mac OS and Windows systems. I've also heard that some people have had success with running it on Linux boxes using the Moonlight implementation of Silverlight.
The Virtual Tabletop is also going to be available to all subscribers within a few days now, and it should also run on a Mac, I believe.
I just don't see WotC doing all of this and if only the easier ones are followed I don't really see anything changing. Some of this even seems counter productive. WotC not having an online store makes it more appealing for FLGS to support them since there is no danger of WotC taking some of their sales. It'd be very foolish of them to alienate a group that is basically happy with them just for a shot at having more 3rd party supporters.
Asking WotC to use the DDI to support other game companies is a step beyond the benign negligence that was basically the model under the OGL. At this point the GSL is pretty much open, its not quite as good as the OGL but nothing is really stopping a 3rd party publisher from making money if they can get their product to market and get people to buy it....
While some of the solutions given in the letter may be less workable, I think there are some reasonable suggested that are just being dismissed as whining by people who don't care.
One thing that comes to mind is the inability for 3rd party publishers to provide content that works with the Character Builder or other DDI tools. The previous version of the character builder had a place for you to create homebrew stuff, unfortunately I was never able to take the statistical bonuses of my new option. If I created a race then tried to use that race, the program would leave it to me to figure out what I got. I was hoping at some one they would actually release a tool that allowed you to program your own races, classes, powers, and builds. Then you could send it to your players, they could import it into their Builder and the options would be all there without anymore work from them.
I believe that once the Character Builder offered this feature, in addition to the helping homebrew content, it would at least give 3rd party publishers some avenue to let their customers add their content to Character Builder. Even if a company does do all adventures, they still are likely to create new magic items, races, powers, feats, or such to go along with them at some point. As you said, "if its not in the DDI then it is a major pain in the ass to play with it."
It has been a while since I was able to check out the tools though and they have gone to a different distribution method for the tool since then, so they may have added these features without my knowledge, in which case, that is great.
You give a very short list of products 3rd party companies to offer. Besides making a large campaign setting book from scratch, I would guess that creating an AP is the most difficult thing a company can make for 4th edition. Making a good AP being even more difficult than that and even then you say it might sell. I can't imagine a small company getting through one successfully and I don't think that any other company would want to get into it on the idea that this very expensive product might sell if they do well on it. I don't believe that WotC owes anything to the 3rd party companies, but if they actually want 3rd party companies to continue supporting them (or, as some would say, leeching off of them) then things like selling ad space in Dragon (been a while, don't know if they have changed this or not) to 3rd party companies would benefit those companies without forcing WotC to expend resources with no direct benefit.
One thing that comes to mind is the inability for 3rd party publishers to provide content that works with the Character Builder or other DDI tools. The previous version of the character builder had a place for you to create homebrew stuff, unfortunately I was never able to take the statistical bonuses of my new option. If I created a race then tried to use that race, the program would leave it to me to figure out what I got. I was hoping at some one they would actually release a tool that allowed you to program your own races, classes, powers, and builds. Then you could send it to your players, they could import it into their Builder and the options would be all there without anymore work from them.
I believe that once the Character Builder offered this feature, in addition to the helping homebrew content, it would at least give 3rd party publishers some avenue to let their customers add their content to Character Builder. Even if a company does do all adventures, they still are likely to create new magic items, races, powers, feats, or such to go along with them at some point. As you said, "if its not in the DDI then it is a major pain in the ass to play with it."
While this is true, there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
A) WotC puts out plenty of new rules options on their own. As cool as it might be for DMs to offer new choices to their players, most players are getting by just fine with what's currently available through the CB.
B) The idea of opening up the CB to programming on the consumer side has been brought up many times across many different fora. I have never seen an established software engineer chime in with anything along the lines of, "Yeah, that's doable."
I can't imagine a small company getting through one successfully and I don't think that any other company would want to get into it on the idea that this very expensive product might sell if they do well on it.
EN Publishing is reportedly doing very well with their 4e APs. Morrus recently mentioned that he has basically no interest in creating adventure paths in 3.5/Pathfinder because they don't sell; such APs have to compete with Paizo's own adventures, and that's not a fight any existing publisher can win. The moment he puts up the same AP retooled for 4th Edition, though, it starts selling like hotcakes because no one else is doing high quality 4e APs.
It isn't that APs won't sell well in 4e. It's that people aren't making them because they think it's easier to produce rules material or accessories, and they are under the mistaken impression that 4e players are in need of these things. The keys to succeeding as a 4e 3pp are: high-quality material (polished content, good production values, etc.) and not trying to beat WotC.
In the same way that competing with Paizo's adventures is a terrible idea because no one makes better 3.5/PF adventures, competing with WotC's system content is a bad idea because no one makes better 4e rules content.
The smart 4e 3pp will create a solid AP that highlights WotC's rules content rather than competing with it. They will write for the DDI DM, with the assumption that the DM and his players will have access to the full suite of tools. They should make it a point to integrate their adventures into the upcoming VTT to easily facilitate online play and provide a value-added incentive for DMs looking to run online games, including maps and monster statblocks. They should distribute their AP at an affordable cost, online, and ideally as part of a subscription model (EN Publishing makes use of this model). They should strive to keep their AP up-to-date with published revisions to the core game, ensuring that it remains relevant and completely playable throughout the 4e life cycle. They should plug official 4e products (DDI especially) as often as they plug their own, with the knowledge that they are dependent on the health of the system and not the other way around.
a history lesson
You have some valid points, and I am sure they will be testing a great deal before they release a new system, but it appears they plan on actually using the current system to do that on a broad scale rather than relying on a couple of fringe books that most people never bought or used like they did on 3.5. I don't think that anything is set in stone about a new edition yet, but I would be very surprised if they didn't have at least some people tasked with watching further results from 4E in order to come up with the structure and framework of its successor.
Most people I talked to when 4E came out weren't all that surprised or dismayed by the timing of the new edition, and would have been willing to get all the new books if it had turned out to be something they were interested in, and there really was a great deal of interest when it was first announced. It was the marketing strategies they used and the sheer magnitude of difference of the final product that turned most people off, not the timing.
For all that a lot of people complained about having to buy new books, most of them still did when Pathfinder came out; that complaint has never been more than a minor one with far bigger concerns determining how many people actually carry through on their threat. As long the product is something that a gamer can even half justify, as was the case with much of the 3.5 splat books, he will buy the new book in the same breath he is complaining about having to do so. The problem with 4E is that after the first few core books, only a relatively small number of players were still playing it actively enough for them to justify the splat books.
While this is true, there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
A) WotC puts out plenty of new rules options on their own. As cool as it might be for DMs to offer new choices to their players, most players are getting by just fine with what's currently available through the CB.
B) The idea of opening up the CB to programming on the consumer side has been brought up many times across many different fora. I have never seen an established software engineer chime in with anything along the lines of, "Yeah, that's doable."
A) That is true and it has been true for a long time, but for anyone playing in a campaign setting not currently supported by WotC, I would say that the temptation and desire is going to be there to create new feats to connect characters to the unique deities, organizations, and people in their world. I would not call it an massive priority, but something every DDI GM building (or converting) a campaign setting will eventually find a use for.
B) I am not going to say, "Yeah, that's doable" (aside from right there). Looking in I can make guesses on how they designed their program and how hard it would be to incorporate elements that I would consider minor additions. And that is looking at the previous iteration Character Builder, I am not sure exactly what visible modifications have been made to the new online tool.
I am confident enough though to say that they have an easy to use tool that lets them create, save, and load new character options into the DDI because of how many options they have already added to the system. Without a simple to way to add a new power, they would have had a lot of trouble adding as much material as they have. In theory, it should be simple enough to use that tool (that possibly exists), modify it (and the Builder) slightly so that it creates files that can be interpreted by the builder. These things should be in place for WotC to be able to easily add new options to the Character Builder, they just would need to be altered a bit for they way they are being imported.
Doesn't change the fact though that they likely have a lot of goals for their current software and that this change (even if it where as simple as I think it is) can wait until they get through their current list of priorities.
EN Publishing is reportedly doing very well with their 4e APs. Morrus recently mentioned that he has basically no interest in creating adventure paths in 3.5/Pathfinder because they don't sell; such APs have to compete with Paizo's own adventures, and that's not a fight any existing publisher can win. The moment he puts up the same AP retooled for 4th Edition, though, it starts selling like hotcakes because no one else is doing high quality 4e APs.
It isn't that APs won't sell well in 4e. It's that people aren't making them because they think it's easier to produce rules material or accessories, and they are under the mistaken impression that 4e players are in need of these things. The keys to succeeding as a 4e 3pp are: high-quality material (polished content, good production values, etc.) and not trying to beat WotC.
Yep. I wasn't trying to say that an AP was going to be unsuccessful. I was just noting that saying that a very large investment into an AP might sell (as opposed to it "will sell") is not a great enticement to try it out.
I disagree that as a 3rd party publisher that producing adventures for Pathfinder is a bad idea, at least partially. I like Paizo, but other people can do adventures too. Same thing for WotC and rules options. They are both good at what they do, but they can't do everything. I don't think it would be a bad idea to produce an adventure inspired by Science Fiction for Pathfinder. If they want an adventure like that, Paizo isn't producing that yet, customers have to come to you if they want it. But if I decided to start publishing my Oriental AP for Pathfinder starting this August, then I would be having some issues.
Same thing for 4th edition, I might (assuming DDI subscribers could actually use this material) do well selling a book of Oriental classes, powers, feats, and items because WotC has not touched much of that material.
Otherwise, I would have to say that there is already no more room left in 4e for a company making Adventure Paths. You note that EN Publishing is doing well there. I have read a message from Morrus saying that they spent $30,000 on one AP and were probably going to spend more on later APs. I can't imagine a small company matching that sort of expenditure. If it is ill advisable to try to compete with established companies in their categories, I am not sure how another company would create product for 4th edition.
They should plug official 4e products (DDI especially) as often as they plug their own, with the knowledge that they are dependent on the health of the system and not the other way around.
I find this very odd considering the comments directed at Chris Dias. Asking for free advertising from WotC was deemed whining. This just turns it around and promotes the idea that 3rd party publishers should provide free advertising for WotC. If 3rd parties are barely able to keep advertising up for themselves, I doubt that it is near viable to spend half their advertising on books that already get more advertising than their entire product line.
Either 3rd parties help WotC promote their lines and they benefit WotC (then it isn't absolutely crazy that they should receive help in response), or 3rd parties don't help WotC so any money they spend advertising WotC is naturally a waste of money.
I find this very odd considering the comments directed at Chris Dias. Asking for free advertising from WotC was deemed whining. This just turns it around and promotes the idea that 3rd party publishers should provide free advertising for WotC. If 3rd parties are barely able to keep advertising up for themselves, I doubt that it is near viable to spend half their advertising on books that already get more advertising than their entire product line.
Either 3rd parties help WotC promote their lines and they benefit WotC (then it isn't absolutely crazy that they should receive help in response), or 3rd parties don't help WotC so any money they spend advertising WotC is naturally a waste of money.
Oh, sorry, I should have made it clear that I wasn't suggesting they spend half their advertising dollars on WotC products. I meant that it would probably be in their interest to include recommendations to purchase specific WotC products in their adventures (for instance, something like "This portion of the adventure utilizes haunting rules from Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead. It's a great product if you're interested in adding strong horror elements to your 4e game.") Similarly, publishers often include a page or two at the back of their book plugging upcoming or recently released products. Tossing in a page that says something like "We made use of the following Wizards of the Coast products when writing this adventure. If you liked what we were able to do here, consider taking a look at these products yourself." Because I'm advocating an online-only publishing method, you don't need to worry about plugs like this cutting into your page count or budget.
Oh, sorry, I should have made it clear that I wasn't suggesting they spend half their advertising dollars on WotC products. I meant that it would probably be in their interest to include recommendations to purchase specific WotC products in their adventures (for instance, something like "This portion of the adventure utilizes haunting rules from Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead. It's a great product if you're interested in adding strong horror elements to your 4e game.") Similarly, publishers often include a page or two at the back of their book plugging upcoming or recently released products. Tossing in a page that says something like "We made use of the following Wizards of the Coast products when writing this adventure. If you liked what we were able to do here, consider taking a look at these products yourself." Because I'm advocating an online-only publishing method, you don't need to worry about plugs like this cutting into your page count or budget.
Then that is a lot better than what I read. I actually find that quite reasonable and nice to do for the company that gave the license. Although, I also think it would be a reasonable and nice thing to for WotC to give to the 3rd party companies. I would have say that the letter asked for the same sort of things you mentioned right here. Adversting in an online format that doesn't cut into page counts nor do anything to WotC's budget. Neither company really owes it to the other to have to mention various product, but it is a nice thing to do that can benefit both groups.
|
EN Publishing is reportedly doing very well with their 4e APs. Morrus recently mentioned that he has basically no interest in creating adventure paths in 3.5/Pathfinder because they don't sell; such APs have to compete with Paizo's own adventures, and that's not a fight any existing publisher can win. The moment he puts up the same AP retooled for 4th Edition, though, it starts selling like hotcakes because no one else is doing high quality 4e APs.
He just very recently (hours ago) expressed tentative interest in doing the next AP in 4e and pathfinder.
Let me find ze quote
|
|
You're probably the person with the most experience converting APs around Scott (although from pf to 4e). How tough a row is it to hoe?
Early in the concept phase for ZEITGEIST I did consider including Pathfinder stats. We quickly realised, though, that you can't just substitute statistics (any more than we could for the 3.5 - 4E WotBS conversion) and that it would require a lot of rewriting for each system to do a job worth doing.
However, based on this thread, I'm going to look again at that opinion. I'm very unsure that it can be done well - the games are just so different, with different advancement rates, PC capabilities, and so on.
So, if there are any experienced Pathfinder writers who feel that this is possible - and within their capabilities to do well - please contact me. I might have a job for you (taking an existing 4E adventure and converting it). However, I'm not convinced it can be done well without massive rewriting - and I'd rather not do it at all than do it badly.
But it might be worth an experiment - I'll even report the results in terms of relative percentages of versions downloaded if I do it. I think I'd be a fool to try to compete with Paizo for the core product type of the core market of their own core game (just like I'd be a fool to be producing APs for 4E if WotC were churning out lots of quality APs), but it might be worth trying at least for the first adventure and see where we are. If we can find a good way to do it.
Very tentative interest at this point.
As I havesaid I thought companies had to pay for the GNL(?) now. It might have changed...or it a rough draft...but I am remembering that there was a charge for it now(I think it was you had to pay it once....also if you paid x amount you would get the rulesearlier...or something).
So what you guys are saying if I am right...not only do the companies have to pay x. to get to use the system...you want them to advertide for them.
I wonder if a better idea maybe would be if WotC set it up as a franchise type deal.
You're probably the person with the most experience converting APs around Scott (although from pf to 4e). How tough a row is it to hoe?
Converting from 3.5/PF to 4e is not tough, simply because of the flexibility 4e provides. I've never tried the reverse. I anticipate it being a lot more work than converting 4e material, because you need to recreate any monsters/NPCs native to the AP in the 3.5 format, which is a rather involved process. The AP also would need to be populated with magic items, as most 4e adventures use the treasure parcel method instead. Any skill challenges in the original 4e AP would need to be reexamined, and presented in some other method in the PF version (either using a quasi-skill-challenge system or reimagined as a series of skill checks or simply roleplayed out).
Finally, the real kicker and legitimate concern behind converting any adventure from 4e to a previous edition is the breadth of tricks available to spellcasters. While 4e provides rituals that mimic most of these effects, they are carefully balanced by level to ensure that you always have a rough idea of what a group of adventurers will be capable of at any given level. It's much easier to come by potential plot-breaking spells in 3.5/PF, so in some cases the story itself might need to be altered in order to ensure that the plot progresses at a pace that makes sense (no teleporting directly to the BBEG halfway through the AP, for instance).
Is it possible? Yes, without a doubt. Backwards conversion will require compromise and it will require as much stat-block drudge work as if you were creating the AP from scratch in PF. That said, it won't be as much effort as writing an entirely new AP, and in that sense it may be that a PF version can be successful even if it sells only a fraction of the copies that the 4e version does.
If Morrus was planning on doing a 3.5/PF -> 4e conversion, I'd offer my help where I could. I don't feel comfortable enough with adventure design in PF, though. I know the system, but I don't have a lot of solid experience with it. If he decides to publish Zeitgeist for both systems, though, I wish him the best of luck!
As I havesaid I thought companies had to pay for the GNL(?) now. It might have changed...or it a rough draft...but I am remembering that there was a charge for it now(I think it was you had to pay it once....also if you paid x amount you would get the rulesearlier...or something).
So what you guys are saying if I am right...not only do the companies have to pay x. to get to use the system...you want them to advertide for them.
I wonder if a better idea maybe would be if WotC set it up as a franchise type deal.
The GSL is free, and always has been. I don't know if there was a time period where companies could pay to see a pre-release version of the GSL, but it was free from the date of release. All you have to do to use the GSL is accept the license and fill out a one-page form.
I'm not suggesting that 3pps pay to support WotC. I'm saying that it's in their best interest to support the system that their product relies on, and because of that they should provide it with whatever publicity they are able, especially when that publicity doesn't cost them anything.
|
|
I thought Axis & Allies minis were also getting axed.
I can't tell what's going on over there. Nothing is updated and there never give any proper press releases. Its all whispers and suddenly.
ppfffffrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
We are experiencing Technical Difficulties
Please Stand By
Then all of sudden you here sirens go off and a flash of light and
aaaaaaaaaaaah
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzrt!
Its gone.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The GSL is free, and always has been. I don't know if there was a time period where companies could pay to see a pre-release version of the GSL, but it was free from the date of release. All you have to do to use the GSL is accept the license and fill out a one-page form.
There were plans to charge for earlier access to the rules for GSL licensees, but as far as I know, they fell by the wayside due to the date slipping repeatedly.
There were plans to charge for earlier access to the rules for GSL licensees, but as far as I know, they fell by the wayside due to the date slipping repeatedly.
Correct.
One thing that comes to mind is the inability for 3rd party publishers to provide content that works with the Character Builder or other DDI tools.
Which just leads the whole thing ad absurdum. They push the online tools as so important for the game, and then don't let anyone else play with their toys. "Sure, you can make character options, but they won't be as good as ours as they're not part of the tools, ha! Here, have the scrubs off our table and do some niche stuff to better help us with our system and make more people buy our stuff."
Of course, it's consistent with their recent strategies: If you can't outperform the competition, undermine his position instead. Pull licenses, create a stricter (and, especially in the beginning, adhesive) contract for the new GSL, pull the PDFs for older editions to make it harder to get OOP 3e material.
I disagree that as a 3rd party publisher that producing adventures for Pathfinder is a bad idea, at least partially. I like Paizo, but other people can do adventures too.
Exactly. Just because wotc can't doesn't mean that Paizo are the only people capable of creating quality modules.
And even if you don't quite feel like competing with Pathfinder modules and APs directly, you can always try filling the niches Pathfinder doesn't touch.
Biggest example: Psionic adventures. Paizo hasn't touched psionics so far. There might eventually do their own psionics book for the PFRPG, but even if they do, it will be years.
But Psionics Unleashed is there right now. And in my opinion, it's well done, too.
But there are no adventures or adventure paths on a world where psionics are used or even integrated. And I guess it's quite possible that Paizo won't ever make such an adventure.
So I can totally see someone doing an adventure module, a few adventure modules, or even a full-blown AP using Pathfinder RPG and Psionics Unleashed rules. And I can see it selling. They'd have to put out their feelers, of course, but this should be something worth at least looking into.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One thing about OGL/GSL I've mentioned before. There seems to have been a change in thought in WotC's management, that I can't pin down.
The first three books (with some exceptions)* were OGL, but other products in the initial run were also added to the OGL (Epic, Psionic, d20 modern, parts of Deities and Demigods come to mind) Early 3.x seemed to be almost as dedicated to open content as Paizo now is. Heck, look at the Tome of Horrors. This is not the work of a company not willing to share their toys. IIRC, there was some discussion with Necromancer Games to prevent overlap between ToH and MM2/FF. Heck, even Unearthed Arcana was a mix of WotC open content and 3pp open content.
The MM2 even included two critters from the Scarred Lands' Creature Collection. I read somewhere (no source, so I'm relying on memory) that future books would be opened up as OGL, eventually.
Somewhere, that seemed to have changed. I don't have a specific timeline, but it can be seen that later products did seem to get away from 'sharing the wealth'. I seem to recall (again, memory) Dr. Nardi discussing how he made his (wonderful) Pact magic books and kept them far enough away from Tome of Magic's binder.
I guess what I'm saying is, as much as I disliked the initial GSL (I lost interest long before it was revised, so I can't comment to it.) it wasn't a 'woke up this morning and threw the OGL out the window' moment.
Would I *like* Mike Mearle's 'call for unity' to result in them releasing a lot of their critters (stripped of fluff) into the OGL world as a 'peace offering' to sooth over hurt feelings? Yes. Would I like 5th edition to return to the OGL? Yes. Would either of those bring me back to WotC RPGs?** Likely not.
So it would benefit me, but not them. I'm sure I'm not alone in this feeling.
Something that *could* be seen as 'Edition Wars' but isn't intended, so I'm spoilering it.
Edit: Our hosts might be able to shed some light on if the wind change at WotC I see was real or in my head, but I'm not going to expect them too.
I believe ultimately the OGL was a failure for WotC. Let me show a quote from the column with the interview of Ryan Dancey.
Q. Let's talk specific examples: Under this license, assuming I followed the stipulations about what can't be included (character generation and level advancement, use of the logo, etc.), could I do any or all of the following things:[/b]
3. Create a genre-specific game (say, a Wild West or Gothic Horror game) that was based on the D20 System game.
Yes, but you'd have to deal with the fact that people will have to buy a fantasy-themed D&D player's handbook in order to get all the character creation and development material. This may or may not prove to be a problem. I'm hoping that it is not. I'd love to see you sell my PHBs to your Wild West customers! :)
You'll notice that Mr. Dancey in this quote implies that the OGL is suppose to drive purchases of the core D&D books. Instead of this goal, what we saw was that other companies instead created their own core books for their genre-specific game. Why use a D&D fantasy book when you can create a Wild West game book on your own.
So OGL failed for the ideal purpose that it was originally created for. Not that I am overly upset about that, I love the OGL, but it did not ultimately fulfill on its promises to the parent company.
Of course, it's consistent with their recent strategies: If you can't outperform the competition, undermine his position instead. Pull licenses, create a stricter (and, especially in the beginning, adhesive) contract for the new GSL, pull the PDFs for older editions to make it harder to get OOP 3e material.
What competition, exactly, were they failing to outperform? Pathfinder didn't exist back then, and the 3pp market on the whole was comprised of very, very mediocre products.
Exactly. Just because wotc can't doesn't mean that Paizo are the only people capable of creating quality modules.
That's true, some people probably can create quality modules. There are two huge problems with this.
1) Even if you create a quality module, it has to compete against a huge array of other quality modules that are already very well established with a very large fan base.
2) If you can write quality modules and you know it, chances are you'd prefer to be writing for one of the big dogs. WotC and Paizo know this. If they see good adventure writing talent, they will try to harness that talent for their own product line.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
2) If you can write quality modules and you know it, chances are you'd prefer to be writing for one of the big dogs. WotC and Paizo know this. If they see good adventure writing talent, they will try to harness that talent for their own product line.
Wanted to ask you this, Scott, since you are much more knowlegable about WotC's practices than I do.
Does Virtual Dungeon produce adventures? Do they have something like RPG superstar to find 'unknown' talent?
just curious, since I'm pretty sure that WotC (or Paizo) doesn't have scouts out looking at every 3PP (whether it be actual publishers, or some fool like me with a Google Docs page) for 'quality modules'.
So OGL failed for the ideal purpose that it was originally created for. Not that I am overly upset about that, I love the OGL, but it did not ultimately fulfill on its promises to the parent company.
That question very clearly states that they're discussing the "D20 System game", which would imply, especially due to references that character generation is not allowed, that they're discussing the D20 STL at this point, not the OGL.
So, did the D20 STL fail to drive sales to the core book? I ask, because given that the OGL had no such restrictions, it does not seem that the OGL was created specifically to drive sales towards the core books (as that was a function of the D20 STL).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
What competition, exactly, were they failing to outperform? Pathfinder didn't exist back then, and the 3pp market on the whole was comprised of very, very mediocre products.
Sales? No one.
Quality?
Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavoc Press certainly come to mind. Remember Sturgeon's Revelation. Judging D20 by the dross in the line is akin to judging 3rd edition by products like the Hero Builder's Guidebook.
What competition, exactly, were they failing to outperform? Pathfinder didn't exist back then, and the 3pp market on the whole was comprised of very, very mediocre products.
Sales? No one.
Quality?
Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavoc Press certainly come to mind. Remember Sturgeon's Revelation. Judging D20 by the dross in the line is akin to judging 3rd edition by products like the Hero Builder's Guidebook.
I think I still have the Hero Builder's Guidebook lying around somewhere..what was wrong with that book again?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think I still have the Hero Builder's Guidebook lying around somewhere..what was wrong with that book again?
What competition, exactly, were they failing to outperform? Pathfinder didn't exist back then, and the 3pp market on the whole was comprised of very, very mediocre products.
Sales? No one.
Quality?
Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavoc Press certainly come to mind. Remember Sturgeon's Revelation. Judging D20 by the dross in the line is akin to judging 3rd edition by products like the Hero Builder's Guidebook.
Maybe he meant Cityscape? Or Races of Destiny? ;-)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I think I still have the Hero Builder's Guidebook lying around somewhere..what was wrong with that book again?
Some people like it a lot more than me. I thought it was uninspired, unattractive, and in general a waste of dollars. The sort of information better put in as a few chapters in a larger book, rather than stretched to fill 64 pages. I don't think I ever opened it again after the first read through.
It was basically the book of roleplaying cliches. Player's Handbook 2 handled the same need a lot better.
2) If you can write quality modules and you know it, chances are you'd prefer to be writing for one of the big dogs. WotC and Paizo know this. If they see good adventure writing talent, they will try to harness that talent for their own product line.Wanted to ask you this, Scott, since you are much more knowlegable about WotC's practices than I do.
Does Virtual Dungeon produce adventures? Do they have something like RPG superstar to find 'unknown' talent?
just curious, since I'm pretty sure that WotC (or Paizo) doesn't have scouts out looking at every 3PP (whether it be actual publishers, or some fool like me with a Google Docs page) for 'quality modules'.
Dungeon doesn't have an RPG Superstar contest because they basically have that going year-round. Anyone can pull up the adventure submission guidelines and follow them to offer WotC a pitch. They're always looking for new material. If what you write is of good quality and fills a gap that they agree needs filling, there's a good chance you'll hear back from them with an offer to create a whole adventure (and, of course, get paid for it).
What competition, exactly, were they failing to outperform? Pathfinder didn't exist back then, and the 3pp market on the whole was comprised of very, very mediocre products.
Sales? No one.
Quality?
Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavoc Press certainly come to mind. Remember Sturgeon's Revelation. Judging D20 by the dross in the line is akin to judging 3rd edition by products like the Hero Builder's Guidebook.
If you're finding that the dross drastically outweighs the metal, though, it may be time to scrap that source.
And, again, who was WotC failing to outperform? You can't tell me that GR, Necromancer and Malhavoc, even combined could put a dent in WotC's sales.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If you're finding that the dross drastically outweighs the metal, though, it may be time to scrap that source.
That certainly explains why I haven't bought a 4th edition print product since the second two core rulebooks (my Player's Handbook was free for playtesting).
As for your sales comment that you added later, do you even read other people's posts? I said right at the top, sales, no one. You didn't define outperform, so I answered two possible ways of interpreting "outperform". Yes, I do think it bothered Wizards that many companies made better D20 material than they did, including Paizo back in the magazine days. And I do think that had a lot to do with the decision to both kill the licenses and scale back what was permissible in the GSL.
Edit: yes, I know I'm being a bit snippy with the "do you even read" comment, but it annoys the heck out of me when you say something, and a person responds with the *exact point you made* like you didn't say it yourself :) There's no excuse for TL,DR in a response to a post that short.
I think I still have the Hero Builder's Guidebook lying around somewhere..what was wrong with that book again?Some people like it a lot more than me. I thought it was uninspired, unattractive, and in general a waste of dollars. The sort of information better put in as a few chapters in a larger book, rather than stretched to fill 64 pages. I don't think I ever opened it again after the first read through.
It was basically the book of roleplaying cliches. Player's Handbook 2 handled the same need a lot better.
Interesting...thank you.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
One survey's list of the worst D&D products of any era, looks like Hero Builder's Guidebook made it. That Diablo 3E product was definitely worse.
Bottom-Feeders: The Worst Products
As measured by average ratings by respondents to the unofficial TSR Product Survey
Only products with at least 10 votes and an average rating of 3.0 or lower were eligible
Rank Rating / Votes Product Name
#20 3.00 / 39 CB1, Conan Unchained, '84 (1st ed.)
#19 3.00 / 38 Hero Builder's Guidebook, '00 (3rd ed.)
#18 3.00 / 23 LNQ1, Slayers of Lankhmar, '92 (Lankhmar)
#17 2.98 / 54 The Ruins of Undermountain II: The Deep Levels adventure, boxed set, '94 (Forgotten Realms)
#16 2.93 / 29 Epic Level Handbook, '02 (3rd ed.)
#15 2.90 / 21 Wizard's Player Pack, '94 (2nd ed.)
#14 2.90 / 31 Diablo II(R): Diablerie accessory, '00 (3rd ed.)
#13 2.89 / 36 CB2, Conan Against Darkness, '84 (1st ed.)
#12 2.89 / 19 Diablo II(R) Adventure Game campaign setting, '00 (2nd ed.)
#11 2.71 / 14 Diablo II: The Awakening, '00 (2nd ed.)
#10 2.44 / 39 WG11, Puppets, '89 (Greyhawk)
#9 2.38 / 34 Fighter's Screen, '94 (2nd ed.)
#8 2.27 / 33 Thief's Screen, '94 (2nd ed.)
#7 2.18 / 33 Wizard's Screen, '94 (2nd ed.)
#6 2.15 / 34 WG10, Child's Play, '89 (Greyhawk)
#5 2.12 / 33 Priest's Screen, '94 (2nd ed.)
#4 2.08 / 26 Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie Adventure Game boxed set, '00 (3rd ed.)
#3 1.90 / 10 Marco Volo II: Journey, '94 (Forgotten Realms)
#2 1.43 / 47 WG9, Gargoyle, '89 (Greyhawk)
#1 1.41 / 22 Diablo II: To Hell & Back adventure, '01 (3rd ed.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Dungeon doesn't have an RPG Superstar contest because they basically have that going year-round. Anyone can pull up the adventure submission guidelines and follow them to offer WotC a pitch. They're always looking for new material. If what you write is of good quality and fills a gap that they agree needs filling, there's a good chance you'll hear back from them with an offer to create a whole adventure (and, of course, get paid for it).
Thank you for the answer, Scott.
|
|
What competition, exactly, were they failing to outperform? Pathfinder didn't exist back then, and the 3pp market on the whole was comprised of very, very mediocre products.
Sales? No one.
Quality?
Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavoc Press certainly come to mind. Remember Sturgeon's Revelation. Judging D20 by the dross in the line is akin to judging 3rd edition by products like the Hero Builder's Guidebook.
If you're finding that the dross drastically outweighs the metal, though, it may be time to scrap that source.
And, again, who was WotC failing to outperform? You can't tell me that GR, Necromancer and Malhavoc, even combined could put a dent in WotC's sales.
Not sales, quality. WoTC tend(s/ed) to shovel some pretty crappy stuff out, figuring that players would take the "Pokemon" approach and buy it any way. GR, Necro, and Malhavoc have had pretty good quality IMO.
Not sales, quality. WoTC tend(s/ed) to shovel some pretty crappy stuff out, figuring that players would take the "Pokemon" approach and buy it any way. GR, Necro, and Malhavoc have had pretty good quality IMO.
We were discussing outperforming in the sense that it would cause WotC to change their policy towards 3pp. Why would WotC care if the 3pps were producing material that was occasionally of (arguably) higher quality? Unless that higher quality translated into substantial sales that cuts into WotC's bottom line, they're not going to care.
|
|
Dungeon doesn't have an RPG Superstar contest because they basically have that going year-round. Anyone can pull up the adventure submission guidelines and follow them to offer WotC a pitch. They're always looking for new material. If what you write is of good quality and fills a gap that they agree needs filling, there's a good chance you'll hear back from them with an offer to create a whole adventure (and, of course, get paid for it).2) If you can write quality modules and you know it, chances are you'd prefer to be writing for one of the big dogs. WotC and Paizo know this. If they see good adventure writing talent, they will try to harness that talent for their own product line.Wanted to ask you this, Scott, since you are much more knowlegable about WotC's practices than I do.
Does Virtual Dungeon produce adventures? Do they have something like RPG superstar to find 'unknown' talent?
just curious, since I'm pretty sure that WotC (or Paizo) doesn't have scouts out looking at every 3PP (whether it be actual publishers, or some fool like me with a Google Docs page) for 'quality modules'.
I don't have a DDI sub and never subscribed to dungeon prior to the take back- has this happened much in practice? Once a month? Every couple of months? Once a year? About the same as before it went digital?
I don't have a DDI sub and never subscribed to dungeon prior to the take back- has this happened much in practice? Once a month? Every couple of months? Once a year? About the same as before it went digital?
I don't have any information on how often they accept these submissions, but going back through the Dungeon archives you can see that a pretty significant chunk of the published adventures have names attached to them that aren't WotC staffers. They have a number of go-to freelancers, and I have to imagine that getting some successful submissions through this process is a good way to get yourself added to that list.
2) If you can write quality modules and you know it, chances are you'd prefer to be writing for one of the big dogs. WotC and Paizo know this. If they see good adventure writing talent, they will try to harness that talent for their own product line.
While this is true(that people rather write for the big dogs and such)....why does not WotC put out good modules? I don't mean just 4th ed...I can't even remember the last half-way decent module they put out. I think they just abandon it.
Note...if they did I think that is a great idea...I hate modules. The Pazio APs are ok....but the games is always alot better when the DM creates his own stuff. Though I understand modules have their purpose I just almost never find them interesting. Just saying that the above is not a attack on WotC...but mostly from curiousity sake.
Also about 3pp publishers....I remember back in 3.5 days there was a company called Goodman game(I think) who put out a bunch of old school modules...I remember hearing vaguely they were putting out stuff for 4th ed....anybody know whatever happened to them?
As I havesaid I thought companies had to pay for the GNL(?) now. It might have changed...or it a rough draft...but I am remembering that there was a charge for it now(I think it was you had to pay it once....also if you paid x amount you would get the rulesearlier...or something).
So what you guys are saying if I am right...not only do the companies have to pay x. to get to use the system...you want them to advertide for them.
I wonder if a better idea maybe would be if WotC set it up as a franchise type deal.
Your thinking of something that sort of, kind of, happened. Basically prior to 4E actually being released WotC said that certain select companies (some of the bigger more reputable 3.5 3PPs) would get access to the basic rules early if they coughed up 5 grand. A bunch of 3PPs said more or less 'sign me up'. Then WotC never got around to hashing out the details, never took any ones money and never gave anyone early access to the rules.
This was one of the factors that led Paizo to ultimately choose to go their own way. They pretty much told WotC that there was a minimum period of time that they would need to make 4E APs (presuming that they decided that the rule set was up to snuff) and if they did not receive advanced copies of the rules prior to this date then forget it. Necromancer was saying a lot of the same things - the basic business point of all this was that 4E sales where likely to be very big right at initial release. Being on the ground floor when the game first hit would be a very big deal, while putting out product 6 months after the game had hit the shelves was not nearly as exciting.
In the end WotC - for whatever reason - never followed up. For a company like Paizo with a real need to have a continued product stream available for a very loyal fan base this sealed the deal and meant that there would be no chance of 4E APs - Paizo would release 3.5 APs for the foreseeable future and eventually they went all the way and made Pathfinder . The rest, as they say, is history.
Note...if they did I think that is a great idea...I hate modules. The Pazio APs are ok....but the games is always alot better when the DM creates his own stuff.
I disagree. Sometimes a game is better with a homemade campaign, sometimes it isn't. Running a module is an equalizer - it removes an element from the DMing equation that's easy to screw up: adventure design.
Note...if they did I think that is a great idea...I hate modules. The Pazio APs are ok....but the games is always alot better when the DM creates his own stuff.I disagree. Sometimes a game is better with a homemade campaign, sometimes it isn't. Running a module is an equalizer - it removes an element from the DMing equation that's easy to screw up: adventure design.
As I said it is my opinion. For me it is always better with homebrew stuff. Not saying I can't enjoy playing a module...but I enjoy homebrew stuff better...though I understand they are nice for DMs that are weak in adventure design...or don't have time for it. As I said they do have there place.
If you want I'll go farther in why I don't like modules and their inherent problems in another thread...but my opinion was just a clarfication of my main point of my post. Which is...why has WotC seemingly abandon module designed?
@Jeremy Mac Donald: Yes people have corrected my fuzzy memories. Thank you.
It was more of a charge to get in the at the ground floor as you said. I remember it better now.
Most people I talked to when 4E came out weren't all that surprised or dismayed by the timing of the new edition, and would have been willing to get all the new books if it had turned out to be something they were interested in, and there really was a great deal of interest when it was first announced. It was the marketing strategies they used and the sheer magnitude of difference of the final product that turned most people off, not the timing.
I disagree. First off I recall this being a very big issue during the height of the edition wars (in which I was knee deep on these boards). The number of people that brought this topic up in one way or another on the seminal threads of the edition wars was big, very big. So big in fact that I would be shocked to find that it was not at least a factor in the decision making of 40%-50% of the original group that stuck with Paizo and chose not to convert - and not surprised much if my figure is a on the low side.
Go back and look at Paizo's advertising in that first year and it'll become clear that the powers that be in Paizo also believed this was a very important factor. It says something that they released their Pathfinder RPG with the Slogan '3.5 Thrives'.
During the Alpha playtest for Pathfinder the designers pushed the envelope and there was a back lash against Paizo...from their famously loyal fanbase. I'm paraphrasing but Paizo's reaction was along the lines of 'whoah guys, this is just a playtest, we are just pushing the envelope...we'll scale back the differences, we promise' - and they did.
|
Also about 3pp publishers....I remember back in 3.5 days there was a company called Goodman game(I think) who put out a bunch of old school modules...I remember hearing vaguely they were putting out stuff for 4th ed....anybody know whatever happened to them?
They still make stuff. they did a lot of 4e stuff, they did a few pathfinder adventures. Right now their main focus seems to be making their own fantasy game. it sounds like it will be another retro clone. Though this one starts with 3e and strips stuff out and will fall under the OGL.
I will say they have one of the coolest online world map features i have ever seen.
|
|
Note...if they did I think that is a great idea...I hate modules. The Pazio APs are ok....but the games is always alot better when the DM creates his own stuff.I disagree. Sometimes a game is better with a homemade campaign, sometimes it isn't. Running a module is an equalizer - it removes an element from the DMing equation that's easy to screw up: adventure design.
I agree, with Scott. Yes if a GM has time to completely tailor a whole campaign for your PC's perfectly it will be great. But few have the time or honestly ability to pull it off. Thats where buying them comes in. Buy them and then tweak them to fit your group. Much easier than making them whole cloth.
A example a guy ran the best Vampire the Masquerade game i was ever in. It was amazing how perfectly everything fit and went... then it was obvious we got further along than he was able to keep pace. It went from being hands down the best campaign to one of the worst campaigns for any game ever. Sadly really, but in the end he admitted that's what happened. he couldn't keep creating fast enough to stay ahead and started winging it more and more.
So yes if someone has the time and ability and can stay ahead of the campaign. home made are better, but the reality is thats rare.
Err I think I had a point somewhere but I forget what it is.
Most people I talked to when 4E came out weren't all that surprised or dismayed by the timing of the new edition, and would have been willing to get all the new books if it had turned out to be something they were interested in, and there really was a great deal of interest when it was first announced. It was the marketing strategies they used and the sheer magnitude of difference of the final product that turned most people off, not the timing.I disagree. First off I recall this being a very big issue during the height of the edition wars (in which I was knee deep on these boards). The number of people that brought this topic up in one way or another on the seminal threads of the edition wars was big, very big. So big in fact that I would be shocked to find that it was not at least a factor in the decision making of 40%-50% of the original group that stuck with Paizo and chose not to convert - and not surprised much if my figure is a on the low side.
Go back and look at Paizo's advertising in that first year and it'll become clear that the powers that be in Paizo also believed this was a very important factor. It says something that they released their Pathfinder RPG with the Slogan '3.5 Thrives'.
During the Alpha playtest for Pathfinder the designers pushed the envelope and there was a back lash against Paizo...from their famously loyal fanbase. I'm paraphrasing but Paizo's reaction was along the lines of 'whoah guys, this is just a playtest, we are just pushing the envelope...we'll scale back the differences, we promise' - and they did.
I have to agree with Jeremy on this. There was alot of back lash against even the idea of a new edition. And Pazio cashed in on it. I was one of those that did not think it was time for a new edition...and than that new edition became a rewrite instead of a evolution of the system I lost all interest.
And I still agree with it....at the time new Editions for games were popping up all over the place. It was something the industry was doing...no new ideas...make a new edition resell the same old books again with slight changes or major changes. It was a cheap way to make money. Like I said I think new edition every 5 years or so is a horrible idea...and it failed in alot of cases which I was happy to see.
Now in all honestly seeing 4th ed and such I have to give WotC some credit...while i might disagree with their reasoning behind 4th ed...I can't say there were doing it for the above reason.
But a perfect example of what Jeremy is refering to was the whole thing with typing out 4th ed as $th ed.
Note...if they did I think that is a great idea...I hate modules. The Pazio APs are ok....but the games is always alot better when the DM creates his own stuff.
Depends on the GM, really. I've played in a few games where the guy or gal running it would've been far better off using canned content. Not everyone is good with formulating ideas; lately, I've felt myself running my well dry, and rather than put my players through sub par adventures, I'd rather switch over to APs and let my creative batteries recharge for a bit.