|
My impression (nothing more than that) from the comments they've been making is that D&D:Next is targetting players of AD&D/2nd edition/4E - there hasnt seemed to be much discussion about what a 3.5/PF fan is going to enjoy from the new version.Well they mentioned they played pathfinder as well as 3.5 when they were brainstorming the new edition. I think bringing Monte Cook back is also a signal.Yeah, I meant in terms of the features of the game (as they're leaking out bit-by-bit). I'm sure they looked at PF - they'd be mad to put out a new RPG at the moment without looking at what the other 'major players' are doing. However, the comments they've made all seem to be focussed on bringing back into D&D those elements from AD&D and 2nd edition missing from 4E.
.
As I said, it's nothing more than an impression, but it seems to me that when they refer to 3.5 it's more along the lines of the similarities with 4E (ie the 'skill system' of 3.5/4E compared with previous editions, the focus on tactical, miniatures based combat as opposed to narrative, etcetera).I don't know enough about Monte Cook to comment - as you made reference, he's clearly deeply associated with 3.5, so that may well be an indication that a similar 'developmental style' will be included. I don't know how attached he is to 3.5 mechanics/philosophy.
He was part of the 3.0 design team. TSR guy from 1992 onwards, did a lot with Planescape etc... His Ptolus setting book is based on the 3.0 homebrew playtest campaign -- I believe.
I don't know enough about Monte Cook to comment - as you made reference, he's clearly deeply associated with 3.5, so that may well be an indication that a similar 'developmental style' will be included. I don't know how attached he is to 3.5 mechanics/philosophy.
I know enough about him to say that he is quite attached to 3rd Edition mechanics and philosophy. Although it's sad his company kind of -- died --. His pride and joy, Ptolus, was recently published and it's in that campaign that 3.x Edition mechanics were extensively tested. At least what he worked on, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If by booming you mean "Selling in a distant 3rd place" sure. And it should also be noted that they were written originally by a 3PP (Green Ronin) that Games Workshop outsources to, and then bought by a card company after they were successful.
Thanks for helping me make my point about how the OGL helps develop R&D.
Green Ronin never worked on Dark Heresy. Dark Heresy was released by Black Industries, a subsidiary of Games Workshop, before they licensed out board games and RPGs to Fantasy Flight Games.
We also have no idea what sort of volume the 40K RPG sells, but it's been consistently in the top 5 since its release. I would love to be making that much money on RPGs.
I do agree that the OGL helped foster talent and grow the freelancer pool during the 3.X era, but the 40k RPGs aren't a good example for that. You are likely thinking of Chris Pramas's work on 2nd edition Warhammer Fantasy RPG.
The basis for 3.0 is still selling quite well. 3.0 wasn't replaced
Funny, I seem to remember WotC publishing a new PHB, DMG, amd MM. Despite the fact that they had just put out those same books three years prior. They also put out conversion documents for the 3.0 rulebooks that had been published in that time.
3.0 was replaced after 3 years, marking it as a monumental failure, using your logic. You don't get to change the rules of logic when they don't suit your argument. If 4E is a monumental failure because it was replaced within 5 years, then so too is 3.0.
Of course, using that logic, original D&D was also a failure, as was the Holmes Basic Set, and the Moldvay Basic/Expert Set. And even 3.5 itself...it was a month shy of reaching a full five years (July 2003 to June 2008).
Yeah, he's stretching there. I mean, using his logic, the basis for 1ed is still going strong because you used a d20 in it and you know, PF uses d20s. So there's proof.
|
If by booming you mean "Selling in a distant 3rd place" sure. And it should also be noted that they were written originally by a 3PP (Green Ronin) that Games Workshop outsources to, and then bought by a card company after they were successful.
Thanks for helping me make my point about how the OGL helps develop R&D.
Green Ronin never worked on Dark Heresy. Dark Heresy was released by Black Industries, a subsidiary of Games Workshop, before they licensed out board games and RPGs to Fantasy Flight Games.
Not according to Wikipedia.
"Black Industries, the role-playing game imprint of BL Publishing, which is itself a part of Games Workshop, initially farmed out the development of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay to Green Ronin, the same company that created the 2nd edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WHFRP2), before bringing development back in house. Fantasy Flight Games took over development of future products since acquiring the license for the game in 2008."
Also From Green Ronin.
Like most things in the industry, it was farmed out for freelancers. And that is a large part of my point, and why those that use the OGL are successful.
|
|
Yeah, he's stretching there. I mean, using his logic, the basis for 1ed is still going strong because you used a d20 in it and you know, PF uses d20s. So there's proof.
The basis for 3.0 is still selling quite well. 3.0 wasn't replaced
Funny, I seem to remember WotC publishing a new PHB, DMG, amd MM. Despite the fact that they had just put out those same books three years prior. They also put out conversion documents for the 3.0 rulebooks that had been published in that time.
3.0 was replaced after 3 years, marking it as a monumental failure, using your logic. You don't get to change the rules of logic when they don't suit your argument. If 4E is a monumental failure because it was replaced within 5 years, then so too is 3.0.
Of course, using that logic, original D&D was also a failure, as was the Holmes Basic Set, and the Moldvay Basic/Expert Set. And even 3.5 itself...it was a month shy of reaching a full five years (July 2003 to June 2008).
No.
The basic underlying rules for 3.0 continued into 3.5. The transition from 3.0 to 3.5 was about the same if not less than the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
1st and 2nd editions more or less co-existed as "Basic" and Advanced for decades, 3.0 was a significant change. But you can pick up a 3.0 module and use it with pathfinder with a some adjustments, most of which can be made on the fly by a decent DM.
You can't do that with 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder and 4E.
If I were designing an RPG, I might hire Monte as an advisor, and then proceed to do the opposite of everything he suggested.Yeah, I mean what does one of the lead designers for the system that had a 80% to 90% market share know...
Even from my side of the debate, Monte has credibility.
Can I ask where that 80-90 percent figure comes from? Is it actual fact or just an indicative figure to make the point?
.I ask because I did some marketing a couple of years back and, as I understand it, in a market with several brands 50% market share is considered total dominance. The way it was explained to me was that, if your brand has 40-50% share and the remainder is divided up amongst half a dozen lesser competitors - you will be stocked by every retailer, who will also carry one or two of your competitors. So although you're ubiquitous, it's not actually necessary to achieve a percentage in the 80s to be considered the default choice.
I'm curious whether D&D ever achieved that level of market dominance (after the other games were established, of course - like post 2000 or something) or whether it just appeared like that, since D&D was carried continuously with other brands brought in as customers asked for them.
|
|
I'm sorry, but this can't be true. There have been plenty of viable options to D&D for almost as long as D&D existed. Not to mention the many 3.5 derivatives that were already on the market when 4E was released. Nobody was forced to buy 4E because of some sort of imaginary monopoly.
Agreed and seconded. While D&D is by far the most popular and with the most prescence in the rpg market. It's far from the only alternative when it comes to fantasy rpgs. You have Palladium Fantasy, Fantasy Hero, Earthdawn, Warhammer Fanatasy, Ars Magica and more.
I'm sorry, but this can't be true. There have been plenty of viable options to D&D for almost as long as D&D existed. Not to mention the many 3.5 derivatives that were already on the market when 4E was released. Nobody was forced to buy 4E because of some sort of imaginary monopoly.Agreed and seconded. While D&D is by far the most popular and with the most prescence in the rpg market. It's far from the only alternative when it comes to fantasy rpgs. You have Palladium Fantasy, Fantasy Hero, Earthdawn, Warhammer Fanatasy, Ars Magica and more.
Ciretose's point is still valid. Although "When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche." is hyperbole - it was nonetheless true that D&D was extremely dominant in the market and had a huge brand-name awareness advantage.
It's not true that people had no choice but to pick up 4E if they wanted to play in that niche, it is nonetheless true that people were far more inclined to do so on release than they would have been with some other random fantasy RPG. WoTC have a much reduced advantage in that regard now.
|
I'm curious whether D&D ever achieved that level of market dominance (after the other games were established, of course - like post 2000 or something) ...
It didn't take that long. Boot Hill and Tunnels and Trolls came out in 1975. Traveller came out in 1977, and RuneQuest came out in 1978. Essentially, the papercuts from the first printings of D&D hadn't fully healed yet before there were other RPGs availible.
I'm curious whether D&D ever achieved that level of market dominance (after the other games were established, of course - like post 2000 or something) ...It didn't take that long. Boot Hill and Tunnels and Trolls came out in 1975. Traveller came out in 1977, and RuneQuest came out in 1978. Essentially, the papercuts from the first printings of D&D hadn't fully healed yet before there were other RPGs availible.
Sure. I didnt mean there werent other RPGs until 2000, I meant I wasnt interested in pre-2000 figures. I was curious what the market share of 3.5 actually was (if that information or estimates of it is anywhere public).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some other OGL musings.
Depending on how the final product looks, I think 5e content (ala KQ) could still be produced under the OGL. Reprinting the PHB might be a stretch, but I don't see rabid packs o'lawyers going after the retro clones out there.
D&D as a brand is still pretty dominant. Paraphrasing what others have said, it's the Xerox of RPGs. Pop quiz. How many of the photocopiers in your office are Xerox?
The world has changed. Tying into my first thought, I seem to recall TSR's net rep* said as a general rule they didn't mind one copy of the PHB or such being shared among a gaming group. Usenet as a collective immediately asked what defined a 'gaming group'. This is much more a question now with virtual tabletops and the like. If I had the urge to translate the Damascarran or Donna's Dozens into 5e terms would WotC send rabid packs of lawyers after me? Would they if I shared my work with my 'gaming group'? Would they if I put it on google docs for download? How much of the core rules could I reference? For example if I say "The Damascarran makes checks in the following skills with a bonus" (based on the 5e transcript as an example) does that cross the line?
There's a difference between allowing and encouraging. I doubt I'd be able to buy SGG's "Guide to the 5e fighter" off the WotC Website. Even if WotC's final product allows flexibility that the GSL doesn't, 3pp do have to look at marketing. Will WotC use its 250 lbs linebacker influcence on marketing 3pp? Will they go to Paizo/DrivethruRPG/other digital storefronts and say "Here's all the yummy 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, PDFs. You can sell them but not 3PP 5e product?" One thing about Paizo, they are more than happy to sell others people's stuff. If I thought my stuff was worth buying, I could sell it through Paizo's storefront and possibly get free advertising in the form of a blog post. How WotC treats (or neglects) the 3PP might make a big difference in how they're perceived.
I've listed why I think WotC should be OGL friendly, others disagree. Just posting food for thought above.
*
|
|
Sure. I didnt mean there werent other RPGs until 2000, I meant I wasnt interested in pre-2000 figures. I was curious what the market share of 3.5 actually was (if that information or estimates of it is anywhere public).I'm curious whether D&D ever achieved that level of market dominance (after the other games were established, of course - like post 2000 or something) ...It didn't take that long. Boot Hill and Tunnels and Trolls came out in 1975. Traveller came out in 1977, and RuneQuest came out in 1978. Essentially, the papercuts from the first printings of D&D hadn't fully healed yet before there were other RPGs availible.
I got it from something Monte Cook wrote that is widely quoted, I don't have the quote in front of me. Enworld had them at 70% to 80% as late as 2009.
WoTC doesn't post such things. The only reference I can find is from anyone else is from back when White Wolf was "booming" and even then they only claimed a 22% market share. I'm at work, so I can't dig as much as I usually would, so that may be high,
And if so I apologize.
But I don't think anyone would argue they didn't have the vast majority of the market.
Finally, I will caution you against personal attacks. They don't really have any place here, but they are creeping into your posts more and more often. Tone it back.
Kettles and pots and all that, Scott. Do try to listen to your own advice.
Scott...
What all of us are saying is that 4E is being replaced less than 5 years after release.
Because it is.
Why? Because it wasn't successful. If it were, successful, it wouldn't need to be replaced so quickly.
I have bolded a portion of the above. The bold portion is the part that I disagree with, and you have not provided evidence in support of the idea that a successful tabletop RPG would be replaced so quickly.
Indeed, as others have pointed out to you, other tabletop RPGs that you might call successful have been replaced as fast or faster.
Prove the bolded part. Convince me that the only explanation for 4e being replaced by 5e within 5 years is that 4e was a monumental failure. Prove that. I don't think you can, but I really want you to try.
To get you started, here is an alternative theory: 4e is a successful product, but 4e is being replaced by 5e because WotC believes that they can increase their customer base by creating a more broadly-appealing product. They are trading a successful product for what they believe will be a more successful product.
You need to explain to me why the above theory is not a possibility.
Sophistry. But a nice try.
WOTC wouldn't have decided they needed to create a more 'broadly appealing' edition if the one they already had was in fact 'broadly appealing' to gamers.
Yes, an edition of an rpg is not a movie, there isn't a HUGE outlay of cost prior to release, they didn't do massive print runs etc, so I'm sure they did make some money on the deal - short term. However, they did also slip from an enormously unassailable top spot in the market, to joint first or even arguably second place - and they previously had no competitors even in sight prior to the release of 4e.
They also undeniably lost customers, both from often bizarre marketing campaigns, failed business decisions (the internet content and so on), as well as from those of us who didn't actually like the new take on the game itself. Oh, and along the way generated what has seemed to be an enduring (so far) and (apparently) wide spread sense of ill feeling amongst many of it's prior customers.
The big unknowable over the past 2-3 years was 'did 4e bring in anything like enough new customers to replace those lost?' - many of us strongly doubted that from our own personal experiences, but naturally we couldn't prove it. Clearly now the proof is in the pudding. A new edition hasn't just been announced, it's been being worked on for a year. They knew 4e had failed (or if you wish to stick with double speak - 'wasn't broadly appealing enough') as early as 2010 - from a mid-2008 release.
No rpg company risks pumping out a whole new edition in so short space of time unless they feel they have no other choice. A successful edition of D&D would not need to be abandoned so soon, new sourcebooks and modules would still be making money, a new edition would only mean risking pissing off and losing the masses of gamers playing and loving it.
Having written this, I shake my head at myself. Why bother explaining what everyone already knows, even those who won't admit it. I'm out. Happy gaming chaps. :-)
There's a difference between allowing and encouraging. I doubt I'd be able to buy SGG's "Guide to the 5e fighter" off the WotC Website. Even if WotC's final product allows flexibility that the GSL doesn't, 3pp do have to look at marketing. Will WotC use its 250 lbs linebacker influcence on marketing 3pp? Will they go to Paizo/DrivethruRPG/other digital storefronts and say "Here's all the yummy 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, PDFs. You can sell them but not 3PP 5e product?" One thing about Paizo, they are more than happy to sell others people's stuff. If I thought my stuff was worth buying, I could sell it through Paizo's storefront and possibly get free advertising in the form of a blog post. How WotC treats (or neglects) the 3PP might make a big difference in how they're perceived.
It's worth noting that WotC doesn't have an online store front for its own products, either. Also, it already provides a page that GSL licensees and partners can be listed on. They're certainly not given priority positioning on the front page, but it's not like WotC is ignoring them.
Finally, I will caution you against personal attacks. They don't really have any place here, but they are creeping into your posts more and more often. Tone it back.Kettles and pots and all that, Scott. Do try to listen to your own advice.
If you feel I've engaged in personal attacks, please do feel free to bring those to my attention or the attention of the flagging system.
I got it from something Monte Cook wrote that is widely quoted, I don't have the quote in front of me. Enworld had them at 70% to 80% as late as 2009.WoTC doesn't post such things. The only reference I can find is from anyone else is from back when White Wolf was "booming" and even then they only claimed a 22% market share. I'm at work, so I can't dig as much as I usually would, so that may be high,
And if so I apologize.
Your broad point is clear. I was just curious where the number came from.
But I don't think anyone would argue they didn't have the vast majority of the market.
As I mentioned, that wouldn't have been my guess in a market with so many suppliers. If they had anything more than a mild majority it means the RPG market is much bigger than I thought it was.
Ciretose's point is still valid. Although "When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche." is hyperbole - it was nonetheless true that D&D was extremely dominant in the market and had a huge brand-name awareness advantage.
It's not true that people had no choice but to pick up 4E if they wanted to play in that niche, it is nonetheless true that people were far more inclined to do so on release than they would have been with some other random fantasy RPG. WoTC have a much reduced advantage in that regard now.
I don't think their advantage is very reduced at all. The announcement of a new version of D&D received an article in the New York Times. That may not seem like much, but it's way more news coverage than Pathfinder 2nd edition would receive. And the fact that so many people refer to their Pathfinder game as "D&D" means they are still winning the brand awareness game.
Pathfinder is a great brand that is growing strong, but let's not forget that the majority of casual gamers and the general public will only remember the name Dungeons and Dragons. I was recently in a small town in Washington and found a small local game store. It carried Magic, a few other CCGs, board games, and D&D. I asked about Pathfinder and they'd never heard of it. This was just a few months ago. I was in Florida last week and one store I found had Pathfinder and a lot of other games on the shelf. But the Magic + Board Games + D&D store had only one RPG in stock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think their advantage is very reduced at all. The announcement of a new version of D&D received an article in the New York Times. That may not seem like much, but it's way more news coverage than Pathfinder 2nd edition would receive. And the fact that so many people refer to their Pathfinder game as "D&D" means they are still winning the brand awareness game.
Pathfinder is a great brand that is growing strong, but let's not forget that the majority of casual gamers and the general public will only remember the name Dungeons and Dragons. I was recently in a small town in Washington and found a small local game store. It carried Magic, a few other CCGs, board games, and D&D. I asked about Pathfinder and they'd never heard of it. This was just a few months ago. I was in Florida last week and one store I found had Pathfinder and a lot of other games on the shelf. But the Magic + Board Games + D&D store had only one RPG in stock.
The advantage persists with non-gamers, but amongst people already playing they have lost a significant advantage. As Ciretose pointed out, when 4E was released, D&D was the dominant fantasy RPG. At the time, there were a few niche options, but not a large number if you wanted to maximise your chances of finding a game. Consequently, there was a certain inevitability which worked in WoTC's advantage - people would have (I presume*) expected 4E to succeed and to remain the 'default game'. To the extent that is true - people who are reluctant to try a new game without hearing how it plays out can be more comfortable with a wait-and-see approach, especially if they're currently playing PF.
.* This makes sense to me, anyhow - as it happens our group was an outlier in that we left D&D when 2nd edition came out (for those niche options I mentioned) and didnt come back to it until after 4E had launched, so I dont have any actual experience or knowledge of what that launch was actually like
If by booming you mean "Selling in a distant 3rd place" sure. And it should also be noted that they were written originally by a 3PP (Green Ronin) that Games Workshop outsources to, and then bought by a card company after they were successful.
Thanks for helping me make my point about how the OGL helps develop R&D.
Green Ronin never worked on Dark Heresy. Dark Heresy was released by Black Industries, a subsidiary of Games Workshop, before they licensed out board games and RPGs to Fantasy Flight Games.
Not according to Wikipedia.
"Black Industries, the role-playing game imprint of BL Publishing, which is itself a part of Games Workshop, initially farmed out the development of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay to Green Ronin, the same company that created the 2nd edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WHFRP2), before bringing development back in house. Fantasy Flight Games took over development of future products since acquiring the license for the game in 2008."
Also From Green Ronin.
Like most things in the industry, it was farmed out for freelancers. And that is a large part of my point, and why those that use the OGL are successful.
I would love to see a source for "initially farmed out the development of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay to Green Ronin". There is a thanks to Chris Pramas and Green Ronin for their work on WHFRP 2nd Edition, which Dark Heresy was greatly based, but the three writers/designers credited in the original Dark Heresy book don't seem to be from any Green Ronin works. The link you provided shows that Chris wanted to acquire the license after Black Industries was dissolved, but I see no indication that they worked on the project before that.
I do agree that the OGL allows for more freelancers to become experts at a product, but industry veterans working on licensed products isn't exactly the best example of it. Chris Pramas worked for Wizards and was known in the industry long before he started Green Ronin.
* This makes sense to me, anyhow - as it happens our group was an outlier in that we left D&D when 2nd edition came out (for those niche options I mentioned) and didnt come back to it until after 4E had launched, so I dont have any actual experience or knowledge of what that launch was actually like
I left way back in 1st edition. You have to admit, the rules were a bit of a mess. I came back at the launch of 3rd when D&D finally caught up with the innovations that others had been using in the RPG industry in the 80s/90s. I still play plenty of other games though. My theory is the people who get most upset about edition changes are ones who haven't really explored the variety of other options out there. There are lots of games to suit every taste, I can't be too upset if one comes out that doesn't suit mine.
* This makes sense to me, anyhow - as it happens our group was an outlier in that we left D&D when 2nd edition came out (for those niche options I mentioned) and didnt come back to it until after 4E had launched, so I dont have any actual experience or knowledge of what that launch was actually likeI left way back in 1st edition. You have to admit, the rules were a bit of a mess. I came back at the launch of 3rd when D&D finally caught up with the innovations that others had been using in the RPG industry in the 80s/90s. I still play plenty of other games though. My theory is the people who get most upset about edition changes are ones who haven't really explored the variety of other options out there. There are lots of games to suit every taste, I can't be too upset if one comes out that doesn't suit mine.
We agree there (although I dont really have an opinion on AD&D's rules being a mess - we generally pay only lip service to rules anyhow :p). Our group will give anything a shot at least once.
.As far as I'm concerned, I think we're all better off if even the games we dont like are thriving - it's why I find being labelled on one side or the other of some 'edition war' a bit weird. I'm not clear whose side I'm on, since I want everyone to do well.
|
|
I would love to see a source for "initially farmed out the development of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay to Green Ronin". There is a thanks to Chris Pramas and Green Ronin for their work on WHFRP 2nd Edition, which Dark Heresy was greatly based, but the three writers/designers credited in the original Dark Heresy book don't seem to be from any Green Ronin works. The link you provided shows that Chris wanted to acquire the license after Black Industries was dissolved, but I see no indication that they worked on the project before that.
They wrote the 2nd edition, Black Industries published it.
|
|
I would love to see a source for "initially farmed out the development of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay to Green Ronin". There is a thanks to Chris Pramas and Green Ronin for their work on WHFRP 2nd Edition, which Dark Heresy was greatly based, but the three writers/designers credited in the original Dark Heresy book don't seem to be from any Green Ronin works. The link you provided shows that Chris wanted to acquire the license after Black Industries was dissolved, but I see no indication that they worked on the project before that.
They wrote the 2nd edition, Black Industries published it.
Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?
Also, Dark Heresy gets NO mention in that article. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay =/= Warhammer 40K Roleplay.
|
|
I left way back in 1st edition. You have to admit, the rules were a bit of a mess. I came back at the launch of 3rd when D&D finally caught up with the innovations that others had been using in the RPG industry in the 80s/90s. I still play plenty of other games though. My theory is the people who get most upset about edition changes are ones who haven't really explored the variety of other options out there. There are lots of games to suit every taste, I can't be too upset if one comes out that doesn't suit mine.
The problem with other variations is that you have to find a table full of people who know the rules and want to play with you.
This isn't hard with something based off OGL, but it can be challenging when you get to something more obscure. Even finding 4 players and a GM for Call of Cthulhu can be a challenge if you aren't plugged in with relatively hardcore gamers.
This is yet another big advantage of the OGL. No matter what style you like, the rule set is fairly consistent, meaning multiple ports of entry and a high likelihood to find people who know the ruleset basics to play the game.
When our group tried to move into Dark Heresy after we tried 4E and disliked it and before we found Pathfinder, the hardest part was getting a chunk of the group to learn the rule set enough so we could play it comfortably...particularly with a GM also learning the rule set.
After we found Pathfinder, we went to that as it was similar to what we all knew and were playing in the 3.5, Mutants and Masterminds, and Modern Campaigns still running in the group.
While personal experience isn't always shared, I do think the large number of players who know the rule set is a huge advantage to entry.
Which is why Paizo is all about expanding the Pathfinder Society. More players and more GM's means more potential customers, long term.
I would love to see a source for "initially farmed out the development of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay to Green Ronin". There is a thanks to Chris Pramas and Green Ronin for their work on WHFRP 2nd Edition, which Dark Heresy was greatly based, but the three writers/designers credited in the original Dark Heresy book don't seem to be from any Green Ronin works. The link you provided shows that Chris wanted to acquire the license after Black Industries was dissolved, but I see no indication that they worked on the project before that.
They wrote the 2nd edition, Black Industries published it.
Right, Green Ronin was a key player in WHFRP 2E. I even mentioned it above. I was looking for any evidence that they worked on Dark Heresy, which, besides an unsourced wikipedia comment, looked to be an entirely Black Industries project. Certainly they based much of their work on existing Warhammer material, but that's not the same thing at all.
Which, regardless, is still a successful licensed product whose only connection to the OGL is rather tangential at best, (via the transitive property of Chris Pramas.)
|
|
I would love to see a source for "initially farmed out the development of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay to Green Ronin". There is a thanks to Chris Pramas and Green Ronin for their work on WHFRP 2nd Edition, which Dark Heresy was greatly based, but the three writers/designers credited in the original Dark Heresy book don't seem to be from any Green Ronin works. The link you provided shows that Chris wanted to acquire the license after Black Industries was dissolved, but I see no indication that they worked on the project before that.
They wrote the 2nd edition, Black Industries published it.
Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?
Also, Dark Heresy gets NO mention in that article. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay =/= Warhammer 40K Roleplay.
Of course, you can also open up your book to page two where it says
"Undying thanks Chris Pramas and Green Ronin for getting us started on this epic journey,"
Chris Pramas was an author of the core rulebook.
Chris Pramas is, for all intents and purposes, Green Ronin.
I'm not sure if you are just arguing to argue at this point, or you don't know the history of the Dark Heresy series and don't realize it is a Warhammer game.
Either way, Donnie, you're out of your element.Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
I left way back in 1st edition. You have to admit, the rules were a bit of a mess. I came back at the launch of 3rd when D&D finally caught up with the innovations that others had been using in the RPG industry in the 80s/90s. I still play plenty of other games though. My theory is the people who get most upset about edition changes are ones who haven't really explored the variety of other options out there. There are lots of games to suit every taste, I can't be too upset if one comes out that doesn't suit mine.The problem with other variations is that you have to find a table full of people who know the rules and want to play with you.
This isn't hard with something based off OGL, but it can be challenging when you get to something more obscure. Even finding 4 players and a GM for Call of Cthulhu can be a challenge if you aren't plugged in with relatively hardcore gamers.
This is counter to my experiences playing RPGs for the last two decades.
First, I find Call of Cthulhu one of the easiest games to introduce new people to. Many of my friends who don't like RPGs in general will sit down for a Call of Cthulhu one-shot.
In my experience you have friends who play RPGs. One of them decides they want to run a game. Then some subset of friends who are interested in the game and can fit it into their schedule play. It doesn't matter what the system is. Sure, I guess if you really want to play a specific game but want to convince someone else to GM that game, it's a hard sell. But when a GM wants to run a game, it's never been difficult to find players for it. A GM with a game in mind will teach the others and we'll get down to playing.
I guess if you do most of your gaming with strangers at conventions or game stores it might be a problem. But I've always had a group of gamer friends. And friends want to play games with their friends. When I moved to California and knew nobody, I found the local university gaming club and made friends. Now I have too many games I'd like to try and never enough time.
|
|
This is counter to my experiences playing RPGs for the last two decades.First, I find Call of Cthulhu one of the easiest games to introduce new people to. Many of my friends who don't like RPGs in general will sit down for a Call of Cthulhu one-shot.
In my experience you have friends who play RPGs. One of them decides they want to run a game. Then some subset of friends who are interested in the game and can fit it into their schedule play. It doesn't matter what the system is. Sure, I guess if you really want to play a specific game but want to convince someone else to GM that game, it's a hard sell. But when a GM wants to run a game, it's never been difficult to find players for it. A GM with a game in mind will teach the others and we'll get down to playing.
I guess if you do most of your gaming with strangers at conventions or game stores it might be a problem. But I've always had a group of gamer friends. And friends want to play games with their friends. When I moved to California and knew nobody, I found the local university gaming club and made friends. Now I have too many games I'd like to try and never enough time.
But this is kind of like saying "Everyone at my church knows about Jesus" and forgetting that not everyone is in your church.
Gamers want to game. Gamers will leave systems if they don't get enough support because they want to game more than the system allows them. They will try new systems and games for fun, even if it means investing 60 bucks in an Core book they may only play onces, and they will all sit around a table for a few hours passing a book back and forth to each make a character they may only play a few times.
But that is preaching to the choir, and that market is limited and will die off, literally and figuratively, without new blood.
It's like crack. If the first hit is free, and it's good, you'll make money in the long run when they need to spend more to get a fix.
This is counter to my experiences playing RPGs for the last two decades.First, I find Call of Cthulhu one of the easiest games to introduce new people to. Many of my friends who don't like RPGs in general will sit down for a Call of Cthulhu one-shot.
In my experience you have friends who play RPGs. One of them decides they want to run a game. Then some subset of friends who are interested in the game and can fit it into their schedule play. It doesn't matter what the system is. Sure, I guess if you really want to play a specific game but want to convince someone else to GM that game, it's a hard sell. But when a GM wants to run a game, it's never been difficult to find players for it. A GM with a game in mind will teach the others and we'll get down to playing.
I guess if you do most of your gaming with strangers at conventions or game stores it might be a problem. But I've always had a group of gamer friends. And friends want to play games with their friends. When I moved to California and knew nobody, I found the local university gaming club and made friends. Now I have too many games I'd like to try and never enough time.
But this is kind of like saying "Everyone at my church knows about Jesus" and forgetting that not everyone is in your church.
Gamers want to game. Gamers will leave systems if they don't get enough support because they want to game more than the system allows them. They will try new systems and games for fun, even if it means investing 60 bucks in an Core book they may only play onces, and they will all sit around a table for a few hours passing a book back and forth to each make a character they may only play a few times.
But that is preaching to the choir, and that market is limited and will die off, literally and figuratively, without new blood.
It's like crack. If the first hit is free, and it's good, you'll make money in the long run when they need to spend more to get a fix.
I did say it was just my experience, making it anecdotal. But I am talking about a fairly wide variety of gaming groups. My elementary school gaming group had different people than my middle school or high school or college or post-college groups. In every gaming group I've hung out with, the GM runs the game they like, and the players play because an enthusiastic GM is worth their weight in gold.
I understand that market forces effect us in subconscious ways. And I'd love to hear about how other gamer groups operate. But in my experience winning over the GMs is key. They decide the game that gets played.
|
|
I did say it was just my experience, making it anecdotal. But I am talking about a fairly wide variety of gaming groups. My elementary school gaming group had different people than my middle school or high school or college or post-college groups. In every gaming group I've hung out with, the GM runs the game they like, and the players play because an enthusiastic GM is worth their weight in gold.
Agree 100% that the GM is the key. And the GM is generally going to want to run the most supported system with the most options.
Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?
Really. The "can't trust Wikipedia" meme was played out circa 2009.
[citation needed]Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?Really. The "can't trust Wikipedia" meme was played out circa 2009.
Well played, sir. I retire from the field in defeat. ;-)
|
|
memorax, Rose Colored glasses painted black?
If you saying that my eyes are closed contrast both our positions. I liked the OGl I would like 5E to have one and can see the benefits. Yet I'm not sure if the market can survive another OGL or that the OGL has only postive qualites. Your position is that the OGL is the greatest thing since sliced bread it has no negatvies or flaws and when I or others point out some possible flaws you ignore them. so who really here is closing his eyes.
You use the Internet, do you even know how it works? Do you know what kind of a device it is? It allows your computer to download anything into it's internet cache. Your computer doesn't care what it downloads.
And here we get the part where respects gets thrown out the window and you start talking down to me rather then at me. And this is all this part of your response deserves.
In fact, it could care less. It's a machine, it downloads what you want to tell it. For Wizards of the Coast to get a profit, those bean counters and IP Lawyers whose jobs you want to protect need to get with the 21st Century and accept the reality that your computer downloads without impunity and release the rules of 5e, ALL OF THEM, and pursue another avenue to gain profit.
Your really proving Wotc stance on piracy. Saying they might as well release anything amd everything free of charge or else they might get pirated is going to do wonders to them listening to you. Or if not free of charge they should charge you for the core books and their better damn be an OGL in there or else. Your not giving much credability to youe argument when if they don't give you what you want you say they should because it will be pirated.
This is the 21st Century, we have a copy machine that can copy anything with perfect accuracy. You want Wizards of the Coast to turn a profit? Then accept the OGL as a reality and help them figure out a better strategy to profit than keeping their toys to themselves. Because if they do, it won't work out for them in the way you want it.
So in the same paragraph you once again tell me that computers encourage piracy. That Wotc better have a damn OGL that suits your needs and if not at least what I reading and I might be wrong it should be pirated. Fine you want two solutions. Release the 3E OGL except yoou have to pay a fee for it. Something along the lines of 300-500$. If your going to benefit from them, threathen not to buy from them and point out their dumb because it encourages piracy then why should they not make money from you. That or make it mandatory that every new product requires the 5E PHB. It would surprise me that they will make a 5E OGL that does not benefit them directly.
I can hear it now. Either I'm being unfair. I'm taking food from starving artists and writers. It's not fair I can't afford to pay that. Well you can;t have it both ways. Want to make a buck of Wotc. Expect them to do the ssme.
If you want WotC to keep doing business like TSR, inc. did in the 80s, then throw your computer out the window. Because not accepting the OGL as a profitable way of doing business is a luddite way of thinking.
You do realize the absurdity of calling someone a luddite when he has an internet connection. Responds to you on an online forum right. Another thing because I have a difference in opinion does not make me a luddite. If your not willing to accept a difference of opinion resorting to name calling is not going top make me want to listen. What's next I work for Wotc because "GASP" I want them to make money just like others want to make money of their OGL. That I want the company to remain profitable and healthy. While those who use the OGL reamin the same.
|
|
First, I find Call of Cthulhu one of the easiest games to introduce new people to. Many of my friends who don't like RPGs in general will sit down for a Call of Cthulhu one-shot.
Call of Cthulhu / BRP is very beginner-friendly. I mean, it's percentages...anyone who's out of grade school can pretty much play the game with a cold start, given a pregenerated character and a group that is willing to spend a couple of minutes explaining something when a new concept pops up. 3.X is not nearly as beginner friendly...even in the Beginner Box format.
Most gaming groups I've played with have been fairly willing to give whatever system a try....well, other than F.A.T.A.L.
Yeah, I'm trying to kill this thread by invoking F.A.T.A.L.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FATAL sure broke some new ground, though... :-)
|
|
F.A.T.A.L. is kinda like a car crash. But inherently more disturbing...yet at the same time hilarious. Each page is a challenge to see which is worse, the abhorrent concept that is presented, or the horrendous mechanics that they use to impliment it.
Character sheets shouldn't need to come with a slide rule...
If I cared enough to bother, I could register on Wikipedia and edit the entry on Pathfinder to say that PeeWee Herman authored it.Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?Really. The "can't trust Wikipedia" meme was played out circa 2009.
Yup. And you'd be lucky if it lasted an hour.
There is plenty of research on this subject -- if you truly care about credibility, I suggest you review it. If, on the other hand, you're just looking to pick a fight...carry on. :)
