By the way, it seems new WotC is more supportive of its 3Ps than during the d20 days. For instance, that web site (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Partnerships.aspx) is great to see.
I also have much love for many of those companies--Joe at Goodman Games; James, Todd and the guys at Fiery Dragon; Joe Browning at Expeditious Retreat; just to name a few. All people I like a lot and think have been a boon to the industry as a whole. Glad to see them doing well. And finding a way to do 4E that works for them. (In fact, Joe's Advanced Player's Guide by Ari Marmell was a manuscript that he had done for me that I released back to Ari when it was clear I wasnt going to go 4E; looks like that has been a good product for them and I'm happy for them.)
My goal, at the time, was an open 4E. Certainly not an edition war nor a division between publishers. So I am glad to see those who went mostly 4E are doing well.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It's also important to remember, that apart from GSL and 3PP support issues, the biggest killer of 4E 3PP is the DDI.The same can be said about HeroLab. But PFRPG3PP's are starting to get into the game on this as well. SGG released a class of theirs for HeroLab. I've got my own plans for upcoming products and I am sure other are as well.
The real difference here is that the GSL forbids making compatible computer products while Pathfinder licensed it out.
From my xp running a 4th Ed campaign for 8 or 9 months, I'd also say that just between the start and end of that campaign there had been a strong transition from "buy the books" at the beginning to "just use the character builder" by the end. This was during the first year or so of 4th Ed being out, and what I saw was an acceleration of putting out new product within DDI, putting continually evolving errata into DDI, and actually players wanting to change up their characters as they went along thanks to the steady stream of new content via DDI, to the point where players were hardly using their books at all because by a year after release *THEY* felt like their PH was mostly obsolete.
Is that good integration by WotC of their product line, at least as far as keeping your character up to date? Yes.
Once people make that leap, however, from "books on the table" to "whatever's in *THIS* database," it leaves precious little room to integrate non-DDI material of any kind, whether house rules (I had one page of em) or 3PP stuff.
HeroLab exists, as does MapTools and other kinds of computer aids for playing PF, but they are IME miles away from being presumed default options. People might use it to assist, but the default is the books (including e-copies).
WotC, in my experience of friends who still play 4th Ed, was largely successful in creating a captive audience with the DDI, to where people often don't want to play without it. The proprietary online game rule-base is the "new normal," not just as e-format books, but as an electronic system that 4th Ed players like to use.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing; by all accounts, the people who like it really like it, and it's good for their game experience, so good on em! At the same time, though, it has created an insulated marketplace of ideas, and 3PP are on the outside of that marketplace looking in.
We very much support Hero Lab and make sure that all our material has a dataset before releasing it.
By the way, it seems new WotC is more supportive of its 3Ps than during the d20 days. For instance, that web site (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Partnerships.aspx) is great to see.
My goal, at the time, was an open 4E. Certainly not an edition war nor a division between publishers. So I am glad to see those who went mostly 4E are doing well.
I don't think that list has been updated since Scott Rouse left (that website was put up under his watch). A few of those links are completely dead.
Also, XRP just had a $1 sale to purge all of its 4E materials and Mongoose hasn't made a 4E product in over a year. Goodman is about to release their own RPG and several of those "partners" are foreign language product translations.
Oh - thanks for posting those letters, Clark. Fascinating read!
|
It's also important to remember, that apart from GSL and 3PP support issues, the biggest killer of 4E 3PP is the DDI.The same can be said about HeroLab. But PFRPG3PP's are starting to get into the game on this as well. SGG released a class of theirs for HeroLab. I've got my own plans for upcoming products and I am sure other are as well.
The real difference here is that the GSL forbids making compatible computer products while Pathfinder licensed it out.
From my xp running a 4th Ed campaign for 8 or 9 months, I'd also say that just between the start and end of that campaign there had been a strong transition from "buy the books" at the beginning to "just use the character builder" by the end. This was during the first year or so of 4th Ed being out, and what I saw was an acceleration of putting out new product within DDI, putting continually evolving errata into DDI, and actually players wanting to change up their characters as they went along thanks to the steady stream of new content via DDI, to the point where players were hardly using their books at all because by a year after release *THEY* felt like their PH was mostly obsolete.
Is that good integration by WotC of their product line, at least as far as keeping your character up to date? Yes.
Once people make that leap, however, from "books on the table" to "whatever's in *THIS* database," it leaves precious little room to integrate non-DDI material of any kind, whether house rules (I had one page of em) or 3PP stuff.
HeroLab exists, as does MapTools and other kinds of computer aids for playing PF, but they are IME miles away from being presumed default options. People might use it to assist, but the default is the books (including e-copies).
WotC, in my experience of friends who still play 4th Ed, was largely successful in creating a captive audience with the DDI, to where people often don't want to play without it. The proprietary online game rule-base is the "new...
Good point. I've seen the same thing happening as well. (I have a DDI subscription.) Kinda reminds me of those ebook advocates who keep saying that print is dead and electronic books will soon be the norm and all that jazz.
|
|
By the way, it seems new WotC is more supportive of its 3Ps than during the d20 days. For instance, that web site (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Partnerships.aspx) is great to see.
My goal, at the time, was an open 4E. Certainly not an edition war nor a division between publishers. So I am glad to see those who went mostly 4E are doing well.
I don't think that list has been updated since Scott Rouse left (that website was put up under his watch). A few of those links are completely dead.
Also, XRP just had a $1 sale to purge all of its 4E materials and Mongoose hasn't made a 4E product in over a year. Goodman is about to release their own RPG and several of those "partners" are foreign language product translations.
Oh - thanks for posting those letters, Clark. Fascinating read!
Yah. Mongoose left the 3PP for 4E biz. Made an announcement about it last year IIRC. The company also recently announced it's parting with Issaries(?) regarding publishing official RQII material (though not the system, which is OGL.)
Goodman's upcoming system is called Dungeon Crawl Classics for those not in the know. Will be going into open beta testing shortly (next month?)
We understand that more people playing Pathfinder means *more people playing Pathfinder*, and there's no way that isn't good for us.
Are you sure?
Goodman's upcoming system is called Dungeon Crawl Classics for those not in the know. Will be going into open beta testing shortly (next month?)
I am very much pleased by what I've seen thus far of the DCC RPG. It looks like it will be easy to create characters and play without being monotonous and same-songey. I just hope there are options for fighters that will be as interesting as what I've seen with regard to spellcasting.
Supposedly, Goodman Games is giving out quick start packs for DCC RPG at Free RPG Day this year - I'm gonna try to snag one, but if my FLGS limits products to one per person, my choice will still probably We Be Goblins, and DCC will just have to wait awhile longer.
@Clark,
Thank you for those e-mails, they were very educational. It's funny to me how much of your proposals ended up mirroring Paizo's policies. Your advice or parallel evolution? :-)
I can't claim that I influenced Paizo's policies. During those months Erik and I were talking all the time, as were many of the publishers. He and I sure talked about things in my letters. We were of the same mind on the right way to do things. So I'm not sure it was so much my influence as us both agreeing on what's the right thing to do.
Remember, Pathfinder could only be created using the OGL from 3E sources in the SRD which requires the game be open. They didn't have any other choice. That said, they understand and support open gaming. Paizo's choice, and my choice, were different from WotC's choice--they chose to make a new system and close it in certain ways that it wasnt closed before. Paizo and I didnt have that choice.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Clark,
Thank you for those e-mails, they were very educational. It's funny to me how much of your proposals ended up mirroring Paizo's policies. Your advice or parallel evolution? :-)
I can't claim that I influenced Paizo's policies. During those months Erik and I were talking all the time, as were many of the publishers. He and I sure talked about things in my letters. We were of the same mind on the right way to do things. So I'm not sure it was so much my influence as us both agreeing on what's the right thing to do.
Remember, Pathfinder could only be created using the OGL from 3E sources in the SRD which requires the game be open. They didn't have any other choice. That said, they understand and support open gaming. Paizo's choice, and my choice, were different from WotC's choice--they chose to make a new system and close it in certain ways that it wasnt closed before. Paizo and I didnt have that choice.
Thank you, Clark.
I was thinking primarily about the Pathfinder compatability license and the like resembling the 'D&D License' you drafted. While I know that Pathfinder couldn't be closed (like say DCC or AGE can hypothetically be) Paizo does seem to have learned different lessons from the OGL and d20 STL than WotC did.
while it's true, Paizo didn't have a choice on whether or not to keep the core game open, they did and still do have a choice on every book thereafter. new classes, archetypes, words of power, whatever is in UC, PrCs, custom spells, new feats, etc they could choose to close all of it, but they don't. that is comittment to open gaming that WotC never showed.
while it's true, Paizo didn't have a choice on whether or not to keep the core game open, they did and still do have a choice on every book thereafter. new classes, archetypes, words of power, whatever is in UC, PrCs, custom spells, new feats, etc they could choose to close all of it, but they don't. that is comittment to open gaming that WotC never showed.
Not really, they can't close that stuff. Its all made from and/or derived from OGC and they can't really close it per the license. They still need the OGL to make those products. BUT they could make it more closed than they do and it is cool they don't.
Remember, Pathfinder could only be created using the OGL from 3E sources in the SRD which requires the game be open.
Well, from what I know of the OGL (which is probably a lot less than you), I think they only had to create it as partially open. They couldn't make their Power Attack closed or their Paladin, and they can't make an OGL book that doesn't have any open content, they could do a lot worse.
I think they could have left the character creation and advancement stuff out of the equation, like wotc did.
I also think that they could have done all the extra books with only token OC.
|
|
From my xp running a 4th Ed campaign for 8 or 9 months, I'd also say that just between the start and end of that campaign there had been a strong transition from "buy the books" at the beginning to "just use the character builder" by the end. This was during the first year or so of 4th Ed being out, and what I saw was an acceleration of putting out new product within DDI, putting continually evolving errata into DDI, and actually players wanting to change up their characters as they went along thanks to the steady stream of new content via DDI, to the point where players were hardly using their books at all because by a year after release *THEY* felt like their PH was mostly obsolete.
Very good breakdown of a major difference between PF and 4E 3PP as it stands right now. As a DM, I began to rely more and more on DDI, using the Compendium or monster builder to create nearly all my encounters. I stopped buying splatbooks like the Adventurer's Vault since everything was in DDI. Eventually all the players created their characters and leveled them up in CB, and creating home-brew stuff and manually entering in 3PP was more work than it was worth. Any kind of character-based 3PP content became less and less attractive. The only 3PP products I ended up using for my game were Open Design adventures. I can only imagine that VTT exacerbates this issue.
Part of the reason I'm running a PF game right now instead of 4E is because I feel I have more control over the campaign setting and house rules in PF than I ever could in 4E with DDI. I like both rules systems fine; it's the other stuff that's been nudging me over to the PF camp in recent years. And 3PP content is a HUGE part of that. I feel like PF is so much more versatile and open to all kinds of possibilities. 4E is very rigid, and if I don't like parts of it, or want to add to it, it's a nightmare to try and tinker with it.
2. They continue to write better material than WOTC ever did.
This is what I still believe was one of the things at the core of the GSL crappy reasoning.
I think 3E/3.5 was the 2nd Golden Age of D&D.
Companies like Paizo, Necromancer, Goodman, Green Ronin, etc. were all putting out so much good stuff for the game at the time. WotC was pretty much tapped out beyond the Core books and a few odds and ends like the Dragonomicon, Frostburn and the XPH (in my particular case).
My spending exploded on Dungeon Mag, Necromancer modules, Goodman modules, the odd Freeport adventure, and even I noticed I had no excitement left with WotC releases (besides for RHoD, Expedition to Greyhawk and Ravenloft in the my declining WotC buying days).
Basically 3PP were owning me. I drooled over the latest Necro (VoLK, GC, LCoB etc) and Goodman releases (anything Feguson, Stroh, Pommier, etc), even more so with Paizo's Dungeon APs and the semi-revival of Greyhawk under Mona and Co.
I think WotC realized 3PP were making better things and people were buying more and more 3PP stuff. Probably why the GSL was so damn Draconic in a few of its stipulations.
When Paizo (at the time had most of my favorite designers) announced they wouldnt support D&D anymore, I knew D&D was dead. 4E never sat well with me regardless, but Paizo was the final nail in my 20+ year D&D coffin. I thought my hobby was dead.
Then came the Pathfinder announcement..... gaming salvation for me. period. I was sad that Necromancer was still jockeying for 4E support, and Goodman already starting, but I was ok with giving them up if I had to.
Now, Im just glad it all worked out the way it did. Necro folks coming back is great (better late than never :) ). I still really miss Goodman stuff though.
Just my opinions, YMMV***
**** <--- standard disclaimer.
I think 3E/3.5 was the 2nd Golden Age of D&D.
Companies like Paizo, Necromancer, Goodman, Green Ronin, etc. were all putting out so much good stuff for the game at the time. WotC was pretty much tapped out beyond the Core books and a few odds and ends like the Dragonomicon, Frostburn and the XPH (in my particular case).
The problem was not that they couldn't produce good output ... it could be done, other companies were doing it. The problem was, they weren't doing it with their adventures. They came out with some amazing stuff, like Eberron which was, IMHO, the best new setting to hit the shelves for a very long time. What they did was focus on the idea that an adventure can be sold to the DM, but a splatbook can be sold to every player around the table.
stuff
Basically agree.
The only reason I avoid most 3PP stuff now is to avoid rules bloat. It doesn't matter if the rules are good or not; too much info over too many books just makes it too hard. Star Wars Saga was a nightmare at the end needing 13 books to make your character (maybe 12 as you most likely didn't need the vehicle book). A single talent tree could be spread out over half their product line. It just became too difficult to manage.
The only thing I would really like to see reprinted is Rappan Athuk; that product was just so friggin' awesome (and if it ever were reprinted, I would sing, Clark Peterson is a Manly Man up and down all the dealer room aisles at GenCon :)). The problem is, it's a lot of work to convert a product of that size and conversion becomes more difficult as more PF stuff comes out (e.g. Do I keep this villains original class or should he really be an Oracle? If I just stick to 3.5 the PC's will have Summoners and Alchemists without ever having to worry about facing one. If I don't, then I essentially have to rewrite the entire module from the ground up.)
It got to be the same way with Dragon magazine. There were some awesome articles in there but after 50+ issues, it was just too hard to keep track of what was where.
SJ
The problem was not that they couldn't produce good output ... it could be done, other companies were doing it. The problem was, they weren't doing it with their adventures. They came out with some amazing stuff, like Eberron which was, IMHO, the best new setting to hit the shelves for a very long time. What they did was focus on the idea that an adventure can be sold to the DM, but a splatbook can be sold to every player around the table.
Yeah, but although WotC produced Eberron, they didn't create it. All the submissions from that contest were fan submissions. All WotC did was polish up someone else's work and give the creator a job. And there was a lot of grousing at the time too that the person who won was someone who had already written for the industry leading to a lot of complaints that WotC wasn't really looking for "fan" material at all but a cheap way to get a new, but already established, writer and force him to sign over ownership of his creation. However, since most of the people involved in that have since been fired by WotC it's largely a moot point.
Nevertheless, WotC couldn't create something like that. They had to create a situation where an outside author would create something great and then sign it over because they weren't capable of creating things like that on their own.
SJ
|
Yeah, but although WotC produced Eberron, they didn't create it.
Not to take anything away from Keith Baker, but there was still a long way between the winning 125 page world bible and the Eberron Campaign Setting which would eventually be published. We even know from an interview, that even this world bible already contained changes made due to suggestions from the WotC staff.
So WotC did not only published it, they also substantially added to its creation. Someone like James Wyatt has had his hands all over the published Eberron Stuff so to say they weren't capable of cre4ating a good setting by themselves seems a bit unfair.
2. They continue to write better material than WOTC ever did.
This is what I still believe was one of the things at the core of the GSL crappy reasoning... Basically 3PP were owning me. I drooled over the latest Necro (VoLK, GC, LCoB etc) and Goodman releases (anything Feguson, Stroh, Pommier, etc), even more so with Paizo's Dungeon APs and the semi-revival of Greyhawk under Mona and Co.
I think WotC realized 3PP were making better things and people were buying more and more 3PP stuff. Probably why the GSL was so damn Draconic in a few of its stipulations.
The interesting thing to me about this viewpoint is that, tin hat or no, it parallels the feelings I had about TSR in the mid to late 1990s when they were actively shutting down fansites. I think there was a real concern among the Powers That Were that freely-distributed fan-created material was a serious danger to their bottom line - that downloads of unlicensed product that got as much or more discussion than published supplements was robbing them of sales. As product quality steadily waned, enforcement was stepped up to the point where even the fan-driven discussion of transcribed con chat from creative contributors was felt to be in the legal purvey of TSR and its little generals. (I know this for a fact, because I was subtly threatened with legal action from one of them for doing just that.)
Sean Reynolds deserves a lot of credit for changing that atmosphere as much as he could in his capacity as TSR's online representative back then - he was probably the best of the bunch. However, other industry insiders - including at least one very belligerent designer/developer with a strong presence on UseNet - were very hostile toward the fans who pushed back. (Ironically, some of them were responsible for some of the worst things to happen to gaming in the latter half of that decade.)
I don't know if all this is true of the climate at Wizards of the Coast now as far as how they feel about competing with 3PPs for market share, but the resulting divide within the community has been very similar, even if there's a slightly friendlier face on everything.
Before we go overboard on what WotC could or couldn't produce, though, bear this in mind:
They created the 3.x core, which was the best thing I have ever seen done with D&D and is the reason I started playing it again.
They created the OGL, without which we would not be.
Give them credit for that at least, whatever later accountants and marketing gurus who knew nothing about how gaming works might have done.
So WotC did not only published it, they also substantially added to its creation. Someone like James Wyatt has had his hands all over the published Eberron Stuff so to say they weren't capable of cre4ating a good setting by themselves seems a bit unfair.
I don't think so. Polishing and tweaking someone else's work is far easier than creating your own. If WotC had been capable of creating their "new' world then they would have just done it, rather than spending months of time and countless man hours (and money) perusing fan material; much of it to no point.
SJ
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Before we go overboard on what WotC could or couldn't produce, though, bear this in mind:
They created the 3.x core, which was the best thing I have ever seen done with D&D and is the reason I started playing it again.
They created the OGL, without which we would not be.
Give them credit for that at least, whatever later accountants and marketing gurus who knew nothing about how gaming works might have done.
Agreed. They also handled the properties pretty well too (MWP's Dragonlance, White Wolf's Ravenloft, etc)
I'd like to point out that by slamming WotC's creativity in those days, you're pretty much slamming a large chunk of the Paizo staff's creativity, since they were WotC's creative department back then.
I think more than a few people that were on staff at WotC when the contest that spawned Eberron came about have been quite vocal about it - specifically, how it was marketing hype (and successful marketing hype at that), and how tons of ideas that rivaled and exceeded Eberron in creativity were pitched and shot down by the powers that be in favor of this contest that paid out far more than the staff or regular freelancers ever got paid.
Agreed. They also handled the properties pretty well too (MWP's Dragonlance, White Wolf's Ravenloft, etc)
...
Ravenloft was their own handiwork... and so was Dragonlance.
Or do you mean that they effectively licensed these properties later? I'm fairly certain they never licensed out Ravenloft, and they ended the Dragonlance license when they were preparing to cut over to 4E.
-Ben.
Or do you mean that they effectively licensed these properties later?
I believe this is what he's referring to.
I'm fairly certain they never licensed out Ravenloft, and they ended the Dragonlance license when they were preparing to cut over to 4E.
-Ben.
Ravenloft got licensed out to Arthaus, an imprint of White Wolf, and published under the Swords & Sorcery line.
There's a lot of 3E/3.5 Ravenloft stuff out there, probably about as much as the Dragonlance stuff that MWP released.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Agreed. They also handled the properties pretty well too (MWP's Dragonlance, White Wolf's Ravenloft, etc)...
Ravenloft was their own handiwork... and so was Dragonlance.
Or do you mean that they effectively licensed these properties later? I'm fairly certain they never licensed out Ravenloft, and they ended the Dragonlance license when they were preparing to cut over to 4E.
-Ben.
That's what I meant. While WotC did the DL Hardback* MWP did the subsequent books and White Wolf did the 3.0 and 3.5 Ravenloft. It was win/win, People who loved Dragonlance did the subsequent books, and the lower production values of Arthaus allowed lots of Revenloft stuff to be made (I still have my Tarroka Deck).
I kind of wish WotC would do the same thing now...
*
Ravenloft got licensed out to Arthaus, an imprint of White Wolf, and published under the Swords & Sorcery line.
There's a lot of 3E/3.5 Ravenloft stuff out there, probably about as much as the Dragonlance stuff that MWP released.
I've got practically the whole run of White Wolf Ravenloft material, and it is gold. They got the licence pulled by WotC (again) who then did a ... frankly, quite terrible remake of the original adventure and setting. I mean, halflings as Vistani? Give me a break!
I've got practically the whole run of White Wolf Ravenloft material, and it is gold.
I have them all myself. WW was great but the line could have used some module support.
|
|
I've never played in Eberron, and never read an Eberron book to be honest, but that contest was not one of WotC darker moments, quite the contrary. It does not point to a lack of creativity but rather it was a stroke of marketing genius which also stirred up some fresh talent for the company.
I might point out that Paizo does something very similar every year with even more success and excitement.
I'd like to point out that by slamming WotC's creativity in those days, you're pretty much slamming a large chunk of the Paizo staff's creativity, since they were WotC's creative department back then.
2nd half of 3.5 was uninspiring save for a few gems here and there. MMIII-V for example were not anywhere near as good as the first two. Bo9S, and the Tome of Magic weren't worth the HC price. There were some gems (usually writtenby the Paizo folks) like RHoD, and Expeditions to Ravenloft and Castle Greyhawk, maybe to some extent Lords of Madness too. Even the Realms offerings were terrible toward the end.
Bottom Line, I spent more on Paizo (via magazines), Necromancer, and Goodman than I did on WotC stuff, which I only kept buying on rare occasion.
YMMV <------ my standard disclaimer
I think more than a few people that were on staff at WotC when the contest that spawned Eberron came about have been quite vocal about it - specifically, how it was marketing hype (and successful marketing hype at that), and how tons of ideas that rivaled and exceeded Eberron in creativity were pitched and shot down by the powers that be in favor of this contest that paid out far more than the staff or regular freelancers ever got paid.
Oh, I agree. The entire contest was a scam to trick fans into thinking they had a shot at getting published when that was never actually the case.
It's just another instance of WotC's 'hire-and-fire' policy. Monte Cook was one of the few to see the writing on the wall (quite early in fact) and left the company before they could fire him. Monte's predictions, before 3.5 even came out, about how WotC would proceed were pretty much dead on accurate up to the release of 4E.
SJ
Before we go overboard on what WotC could or couldn't produce, though, bear this in mind:
They created the 3.x core, which was the best thing I have ever seen done with D&D and is the reason I started playing it again.
They created the OGL, without which we would not be.
Give them credit for that at least, whatever later accountants and marketing gurus who knew nothing about how gaming works might have done.
That's a very fair comment and wise observation.
But the creation was primarily Monte and the vision was Ryan Dancey. They really started doing things right--the suggested promise of a return to Greyhawk and old school roots, even the revival of the classic ancient Chainmail product. But then there was no follow through with Greyhawk and Chainmail, which was to be awesome mass combat became a weak minis game. Pretty quickly, D&D there were changes to who was handling D&D, including the involvement of Anthony Valterra, who seemed to be out of his depth in that job.
So that initial creativity and mindset of openness didnt last very long at Wizards. But they do deserve and always should get credit for creating 3E and for supporting Open Gaming initially. No doubt about it. Credit where credit is due.
Oh man...
Just when I thought I'd finally forgotten that horrible rendition of Chainmail...
Thanks Mr. Peterson! ;-p
Sorry. I know it's painful. But I was so geeked when they announced it. And then what it became. Bummer.
|
|
A lot of what you have revealed here Clark has confirmed what many of us had been speculating about for some time. When WOTC started ending or at least changing relationships with third party producers, their management thought they were reeling back in their control of the property, a classic business reorganization strategy of moving to a vertical "value chain". The corporate management team could not or would not see that it was too late for that. The "D&D" value chain was pretty much permanently spread out into a sort of far reaching network. They had Paizo, Green Ronin, Necromancer, Kenzerco, Goodman Games, etc., as part of the value chain. The greatest benefit of the OGL was good will. Good will with the consumer and with other stake holders like third party publishers is an intangible asset. It is hard to build up, hard to define, and difficult to replace once lost. The third party publishers were allies to WOTC, but they could not see that, and turned them into competitors. They wanted to consolidate the market, and instead they fractured it. The network value chain that they built is gone and broken up into smaller mini value chains and the now growing Paizo/Pathfinder chain.
The OGL philosphy seems to be along the lines of "a rising tide raises all boats" very much a free market concept. The GSL seems more of a protectionist "make sure ours is the only boat afloat" way of thinking.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Yeah, but although WotC produced Eberron, they didn't create it.Not to take anything away from Keith Baker, but there was still a long way between the winning 125 page world bible and the Eberron Campaign Setting which would eventually be published. We even know from an interview, that even this world bible already contained changes made due to suggestions from the WotC staff.
So WotC did not only published it, they also substantially added to its creation. Someone like James Wyatt has had his hands all over the published Eberron Stuff so to say they weren't capable of cre4ating a good setting by themselves seems a bit unfair.
The fact of the matter is that Eberron was _always_ going to be a Wizards of the Coast campaign setting. The contest was to pick the best and coolest world that they could use as a template to build all sorts of things they wanted to do. Keith obviously played a huge role, but credit also belongs to folks like James Wyatt, Chris Perkins, Bill Slavicsek, and others.
Eberron is a Wizards of the Coast campaign setting.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
So WotC did not only published it, they also substantially added to its creation. Someone like James Wyatt has had his hands all over the published Eberron Stuff so to say they weren't capable of cre4ating a good setting by themselves seems a bit unfair.I don't think so. Polishing and tweaking someone else's work is far easier than creating your own. If WotC had been capable of creating their "new' world then they would have just done it, rather than spending months of time and countless man hours (and money) perusing fan material; much of it to no point.
SJ
Marketing.
Also: A lot of really smart, creative folks play D&D. I think a big part of the motivation is that they wanted to do it for the fun of it.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I think more than a few people that were on staff at WotC when the contest that spawned Eberron came about have been quite vocal about it - specifically, how it was marketing hype (and successful marketing hype at that), and how tons of ideas that rivaled and exceeded Eberron in creativity were pitched and shot down by the powers that be in favor of this contest that paid out far more than the staff or regular freelancers ever got paid.
That's pretty pathetic, in my view. A former WotC employee seriously said that? I find it almost hard to believe.
Not that the campaign search was largely marketing--it clearly was even at the time--but that "tons of ideas that rivaled and exceeded Eberron in creativity were pitched and shot down by the powers that be"?
I mean, seriously.
Thousands of entries poured into WotC. Of course all kinds of awesome ideas were shot down. By definition, that was going to happen to hundreds--no, literally thousands--of cool, creative ideas. In fact, I remember that many of the things Wizards asked Keith to incorporate into his bible were ideas from other people's submissions, but even still, not everyone gets to be a winner.
As I remember, most committed members of the creative staff and other WotC employees (including yours truly, and I'll bet James too) submitted proposals. I remember hearing about people submitting 10 ideas or more.
The idea that anyone would grouse about losing this contest, or about how the winner made more money than they did, is just sort of sad.
Slight related derailing - The other two finalists for the Campaign Setting were Rich Burlew (which I would surprised if too many people don't know what he went on to make) and Nathan Toomey.
Just tried a google on Nathan Toomey and was not able to track anything down. Did he go on to create RPG content?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Dunno. I seem to remember that the Morningstar campaign setting was one of the finalists. And maybe Fantasy Flight's Dawnforge. I don't think either was in the super-finalist category, but possibly in the top 10 or something.
The Top 3 were Keith, Rich and Nathan link and found this list on EN World
"Semi-finalist: Dawnforge – Fantasy Flight Games
Semi-finalist: Morningstar – Ronald Scott Kennan
Semi-finalist: Urbis – Jürgen Hubert
Semi-finalist: Code of Unaris (The Sunset Kingdoms/Alfar Tower) - Gary Pratt
Semi-finalist: Cappedocio – Alexandre Gélinas and two other unnamed authors
Semi-finalist: Reign of Ashes – unknown author, alias is MissHappen at EN World"
The thread states that the last two semi-finalists didn't come forward.
I've got practically the whole run of White Wolf Ravenloft material, and it is gold. They got the licence pulled by WotC (again) who then did a ... frankly, quite terrible remake of the original adventure and setting. I mean, halflings as Vistani? Give me a break!
In my not-so-humble opinion White Wolf was the best thing that happened to Ravenloft in its whole history. After the White Wolf announced ending the line and return of license to WotC and offered their last unfinished book as free pdf I had overwhelming feeling that someone at WotC was afraid of high quality of WW Ravenloft and forced its termination.
Or at least was afraid that with WW Ravenloft present their own Heroes Of Horror, that, if my memory serves me well, was to be produced around that time will suffer.
That's pretty pathetic, in my view. A former WotC employee seriously said that? I find it almost hard to believe.
I'm summarizing based on blog posts and other things I've read in the last 5 or so years.
Not that the campaign search was largely marketing--it clearly was even at the time--but that "tons of ideas that rivaled and exceeded Eberron in creativity were pitched and shot down by the powers that be"?
Based on memory, a comment referring to this brainstorming/idea-pitching was that it had taken place immediately prior to the announcement of contest. I don't want to suggest that it was during the contest or a contest entry.
The idea that anyone would grouse about losing this contest, or about how the winner made more money than they did, is just sort of sad.
Overall, the complaint's that I remember weren't about losing the contest, but about the overall situation.
In SKR's case, his comment specifically refers to the fact that they were paying out $100,000 to the winner of this contest (and I'm pretty sure the runner-ups got paid, too) while firing people:
Here's my chapter-by-chapter review of Eberron, WotC's new campaign setting book. While I was annoyed that one branch of WotC decided to have an open call for submissions to create the next campaign setting while there was a whole passel of creative people sitting in RPG R&D, and equally annoyed that this contest was offering a $100,000 prize while R&D (and the rest of the company) was doing layoffs. But I was able to put that aside and look at the book objectively ... after all, the material isn't what I was miffed about, it was the origin of the material.
I would like to point out that his is the only comment I can easily find at the moment, as various forums and blogs are long since gone or not showing in Google results.
He likes the setting, he doesn't complain about his ideas being better, and he was, by no means, one of the most vocal comments I have seen. He was quite objective in his positive review of the campaign.
Honestly, I don't find anything about his issue with the contest sad at all - I agree with it wholeheartedly. It's rather bogus to be firing people and using their salaries to pay for some contest.
Again, this is the general theme of the other complaints that I saw. These really weren't bitter spoil-sports complaining because they lost and someone got more money than them.
Sorry. I know it's painful. But I was so geeked when they announced it. And then what it became. Bummer.Oh man...
Just when I thought I'd finally forgotten that horrible rendition of Chainmail...
Thanks Mr. Peterson! ;-p
I could have told you that at the outset - it's what happened inthe eighties with Games Workshop. GW back then had the exclusive import rights to the UK on just about everything in RPGs. They toopk on some new suits who examined the company and pointed out that Warhammer and the miniatures were the biggest profit makers for the company, and so scrapped everything else and just ran with Warhammer, with WHFRP as a bone tossed to the role-players. For the next two years it was nearly impossible to get new RPG material in the UK, except at a few places.
WotC looked at things the same way - minis and combat rules make the most money, end of, so that's where they will concentrate.
|
Creative Director
|
As I remember, most committed members of the creative staff and other WotC employees (including yours truly, and I'll bet James too) submitted proposals.
I did indeed submit a proposal for the contest. It was about a big frozen world. I suspect the main reason it didn't win was because it was too specialized—no room for jungles or deserts in a frozen world, after all.
But then I got to write a large part of Frostburn, so a lot of the ideas I had for that setting got put into that book anyway.
But then I got to write a large part of Frostburn, so a lot of the ideas I had for that setting got put into that book anyway.
May I just take a second to mention how much I loved all the environmental books? HUGE amounts of GM crunch, very helpful!
And also put in a vote for a combined Environments book down the road. :) Sort of Frostburn/Stomrwrack/etc all rolled up into one. A chapter on each environment, a chapter of environment specific spells, archetypes, and a little gear? ;)
Dunno. I seem to remember that the Morningstar campaign setting was one of the finalists. And maybe Fantasy Flight's Dawnforge. I don't think either was in the super-finalist category, but possibly in the top 10 or something.
I think the other two super finalist's worlds were kept by WotC for possible future release. I am nott 100% certain of that though.
So we won't see Rich Burlew or Nathan Toomey's campaign setting till WotC decide to release them. Which might be why Nathan has not donbe anything else....as he can't just published his world under 3PP stuff.