| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 18:47:38
|
You'll forgive my reference to pickled Irish children... Lol.
Erik suggested I repost a comment I made under another thread here, so always open to constructive suggestions, here I'm doing just that.
Here is the (somewhat edited) text of the original post:
I have, in my adult life, not been much of an internet forum poster (no offense intended to the denizens of this quite cool site Lol). The first time I ever felt sufficiently moved to post something on a company site was when they killed Fox Mulder off on the X-Files and the second was a post to the Paizo forums in the immediate wake of release of the 4E Realms sourcebook (for reasons I'm sure you can imagine). My third foray came recently on this site. Here then is my fourth (which just so happens to bear an eerie resemblance to what I said on the Paizo boards back in 2008).
It would seem to me that there is no shortage of people less than delighted with the direction of the 4E Realms over the last few years. Some (like me) abhor the changes of the Spellplague, some think they didn't go far enough, but either way, there seem not to be all that many people who really fully embrace (and run campaigns in) the canon 4E Realms. Furthermore, there seem to be no shortage of talented, creative people with a background writing Realms material whose talent is thus free to engage in a little bit of good old fashioned entrepreneurial work.
Like many of the long term (read people who cut their teeth on 1E or 2E AD&D) players who were fans of the Realms and of the older spell casting classes and magic system which dominated pre 4E systems, I've switched to Pathfinder and have been running in that system since it's Beta Release a couple years back. Now, Pathfinder (and it's world) have been pretty darn successful over these past couple of years going head to head with 4E (when the boys over at Penny Arcade flirt with abandoning 4E for Pathfinder you know there is a problem) and stealing away most of what remains of 3E's gamer base. The only thing they, or some other enterprising game company (and here I'm thinking of something like the folks who brought us Hackmaster or those who are working to bring us the Midgard setting) don't have is the cache of the Realms setting. Well, that's impossible you say. Hasbro is hip deep in trying to relaunch the Realms as their flagship setting (see varied Neverwinter product releases) and would never in a million years dream of selling it off to someone else. Here I agree.
However, I'm a lawyer (when I'm not DMing, hell, even when I am Lol), and I know that just because something novel hasn't been done in the law doesn't mean it CAN'T be. Negotiating novel contractual concepts is how law firms get rich. I'm of the view that the Realms is big enough for everyone to have their fun in (and make money from) and here is how...
The key isn't focusing on the where's of the intellectual license, it's focusing on the when's. 4E jumped 100+ years into the future for an assortment of reasons (some good some bad). However, in so doing they left a number of (non immortal) characters and the recent events of places and things all over the Realms high and dry. This would allow two creative forces, Hasbro operating in the 1400 post Spellplague Realms with their 4E product line, and some other entity (or entities) operating in the 1300 era (or even before should they choose) with a different product line. These lines, while potentially competing for sales to some degree (more on how to make that a win/win for all in a moment), would not be at all competing with each other over plot, unique and interesting characters, and the like. They literally cannot cross over to any great degree and, just like Old Republic Star Wars, older authors/game designers clearly know who they can and cannot kill off (and have little incentive to kill off the few 4E survivors anyway).
Even shackled with these considerations, there would be PLENTY of creative freedom for the pre Spellplague crew. They could keep chugging from 1375 forward for a few years, or they could (more interestingly to me anyway) take us back to the 1330's, where Elminster and the other Chosen still serve as key background figures, Mystra is still Mystra (and Bhaal, Myrkul, etc still remain), but where Durnan is first establishing the Yawning Portal, Mirt still roams the Sword Coast as a dashing reaver, The Zhents are on the rise, and all manner of old conflicts brew in Waterdeep and across the Realms. Several of the key literary characters from various Realms authors could also have their backstories laid out. Plenty of room for product release and a pre-built sales base eager to buy them...
As to how such a thing could be a win/win, even for 4E and Hasbro, one could take the simple view that any increase in sales of Realms products (and interest in the Realms) accrues to the benefit of the entity that owns the product lines future incarnation (and let's face it, the Realms need a 4E boost). Or, if they wanted to be even more direct in their revenues, they could take the step of licensing the time period or, better yet (I think) just taking a clean percentage of all product sales (say in the neighborhood of 5 % to 10%) of all of the pre-Spellplague Realms products sold or even some variant on a royalty payment system.
Now, my idea may be a bit complex or overly ambitious, but it is a thought for all those many creative people who have spent years working in the Realms only to now find themselves marginalized to some extent and all those gamers who would love to see Realms content translated into their new system of choice (be that Pathfinder or something else).
Thoughts?
|
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 20:02:31
|
Wow... you ARE a lawyer. 
I had to re-read that twice to fully understand what you were proposing (like reading those infernal propositions at the voting booth, and you can never figure-out if you are voting for or against something).
On the surface, it sounds brilliant, but in corporate America, large companies are often willing to sacrifice some income in order to curtail competition. Bear in mind that most of the guys responsible for 3e left and created their own competing companies, using the very system they created under WotC, and were clever enough to make 'open source'.
Not saying the planned any of that (I'd be damned impressed if they did), but Hasbro got bitten in the arse the last time they decided to share some property. I just don't see it happening.
Also, I addressed something similar on the Paizo forums awhile back, in regards to exactly what WotC still truly owns (most of D&Ds concepts have been used elsewhere over the years, and wasn't contested, and the open-source of 3e really complicates things). The bottom line was, "Do we really want everyone and his brother writing for the Realms?" I've seen some truly craptastic fan-fic in my days, and I'd hate to see the IP digress into a mire of non-continuity and personal gratification such a situation would engender.
In other words, better to have an enemy you know, then a slew you don't. (not that WotC is our enemy - I am just stating how many people see things). Right now, WotC is the only glue still holding this ship together. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Dec 2011 20:05:38 |
 |
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 20:16:25
|
I'm inclined to agree. Besides, I like 4E, despite its flaws. Not that the other editions didn't have any. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 20:39:28
|
*makes a hand wavey gesture*
I confess, I'm not too thrilled with the suggestion you've thrown out. It works for me in theory because a major problem of the situation was there was no real transition the way that the "Time of Troubles" eased us in through. Cyric, Kelemvor, and Mystra had a LOT of books to move the relatively minor changes of replacing their predecessors in the pantheon.
Your suggestion would solve some of that and I'd love to get an ending to Arilyn Moonblade.
However, I think part of the poor reception of 4E is also because the books smashed a bunch of useful NPCs and ideas. 4E would benefit, I think if they started giving us NEW NPCs and NEW information which hopefully would also include significant input from Ed Greenwood.
(His vision should, in my mind, always be incorporated to every incarnation of the Realms) |
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 20:53:03
|
Hated all the 4E changes. Hated the Time of Troubles, Cyric, Kelemvor, Midnight, and all associated with that also.
They're never going to fix the Realms in a way that I'd like, so I pick and choose what I want to put into my 1E-ish homebrew Realms. What WotC does or doesn't do has become really irrelevant. During the 4E period, I purchased three novels and nothing else.
They're going to have another RSE for 5E, have no doubt. The more frosting you put on a cake never makes the actual cake any better.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 20:56:29
|
I have no problem with 4e itself - my problem (and I would hazard to guess for many others here) was what they felt they needed to do to the Realms to get it ready for 4e.
I had more here, but I ditched it. Time to move forward. 
Anyhow, I think the BEST case scenario would be for WotC to develop their 4e rules separately from most of their settings. They can pick one - with a failing fanbase - like Oerth/Greyhawk or Mystara, and use that as THE world their system is wrapped around (the best RPGs are the ones where the rules are tailored to the specific world). Basically, a non-setting, which is how they setup 4e anyway.
Then they should continue to publish both novels and sourcebooks for settings, but present them in a manner that is not tied to the rules. We know this is possible, because Ed did this with the Volo's Guides... and thats precisely the direction I think the Realms (and Krynn, and a few others like Athas, Sigil, Ravenloft, etc) should go - the Volo's Guides and novels. Heck, RL is already setup for that with the VanRichten's Guides.
Leave the large sourcebooks for the rules, and make the smaller format (Volo's Guide/Known World Gazeteer size) more story-like for the settings; another good example of that style of presentation were the 2e Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms Player's Guides (both of which I thoroughly enjoyed). Then the paperback size would be just for novels; I know they experimented at one time with using the paperbacks for game-stats, and it didn't work, which is a damn shame. Thats why we need that in-between size, which happens to have been very popular in the past.
And then the final thing would be to put someone competent in-charge of each setting - Ed for FR, Margaret Weiss for DL, etc, and give them freedomn to do things THEIR WAY, free from the rules, and Hasbro can collect a percentage from any products produced (like a partnership). If Hasbro foots the publishing bill, then it should be about 50/50 on the profits, I think, but thats something for the lawyers to work-out.
Keep the game companies out of the creative end, and leave them to what they do best - writing rules. I think that would work to everyone's advantage, and players would be free to use whatever system (if any) they wanted. I know non-system-specifc sourcebooks are possible - aside from the Volo's Guides we also had quite a few from companies like Flying Buffalo - they had a whole system worked out where their Citybooks could be used under any rules (and it was also rather simple - WotC should buy them).
Give people choices, and they will come.
EDIT: In retrospect, looking back over what I just wrote, I realize its just a pipe-dream. There are things involved here that certain person's would be unwilling to give-up, and I am betting that they would actually allow FR/D&D to fail before they relinquished any sort of control over what they now consider 'theirs'.
I had a lot more here as well, but I realize it was just more pot-stirring. We will never get what we want, because that would require sacrifice on certain people's parts. We have 'angered the gods', and now must live with our post-apocalyptic mess. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Dec 2011 21:18:27 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 01:37:21
|
I've mentioned before that there are legal precedents for this sort of stuff. The best known example would be Paramount issuing special licenses for fan-generated Star Trek content - ranging all the way up to novels and movies and weekly shows. Most of this stuff is quite amateur and visibly low-budget when compared against the big syndicated material, yet some of these indie fanon things maintain high enough production standards that they could be (and have been) aired on television for mass consumption.
The most interesting points about this arrangement, to me, are
1) The fan-Trek content is, like any other content, received very well by most of the fans. Many have strong preferences towards this-or-that era or elements within the setting, few embrace all the official canon material without reservation ... yet for the most part Trekkies are quite happy to accept the better fan productions as "real Trek". There's a number of different projects which introduce "important" new characters and ships and alien races, they are positioned in different corners (in fact, even within alternate timelines) of the Trek universe ... there seems to be something for everyone and the entire Trek franchise benefits as a result. Many of the "official" actors have reprised their roles in various projects, and only a sullen few have refused to publicly express positive opinions which support the fanon.
2) Paramount has even gone ahead and adapted some of these fanon ideas into their own new version of Star Trek, released in movie format in 2009. They'd rather let the product grow and evolve towards appealing to their audience consensus than rigidly maintain a stranglehold on a dead product good only for re-runs and old school diehards.
3) Paramount doesn't have exclusive rights to the Star Trek franchise, in fact their chunk of it is smaller than the content owned by CBS. Yet CBS not only tolerates Paramount's loose licensing restrictions, it has even encouraged it.
I'm not trying to steer this scroll off to Trekkie talk. I'm just pointing out that there are some similarities, and that Paramount's astonishing success with this approach is an example worth considering. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 07:37:12
|
Ayrik,
I went Star Wars with my analogy, but Star Trek is ably apt. Truly the sort of mutually beneficial relationship I envisioned (even if the Lucas model is more the sort I think would work for some of the quality control reasons outlined below).
Charles,
An ability to provide a fitting ending (or even better, just more content!) for so many beloved characters would be worth it in my view. I agree that smashing all of those characters and ideas was precisely what put a bad taste in my mouth with 4E (and even to some extent 3E). Again, imagine a product line that gave a new lease on life to precisely those people. Old favorites, new adventures and information.
I also agree that ensuring (by way of quality control) some editorial control by key people (like Ed) over Realms products would ideal, but for that to happen you'd need a major player (like Paizo) to be the ones to step up and decide to commit to a Realms product line and you'd need Ed to be consulted. Not 100% certain by any means, but certainly achievable I imagine.
Markustay,
As I say to Charles, I agree that quality control is a MAJOR consideration of mine. Just generating new Realms product without ANY filter is an invitation to a lot of ill conceived ideas (but then again bad ideas have a limited economic shelf life if their main consumer base rejects them...I can make the obvious analogy, but I don't think I need to...). In truth, I imagine WoTC/Hasbro would only seek to ally themselves with/license Realms products to an entity they thought would bring VALUE to their Realms intellectual property. My concept of a pre 1385 product line using another game system, tied in to the release of a post Spellplague series of WoTC products with certain key elements in common (ones near and dear to the heart of a certain Sage of Shadowdale for example...) would no doubt allow both companies to make money and please classic Realms fans on multiple levels.
Your other idea is actually a pretty good one I'd never considered. A series of 'open source' lore books compatible with multiple systems (Kobold Quarterly style if you will) would certainly be a nice. Not quite as good as what I'd be hoping for, but it sure beats nothing!
|
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 09:23:20
|
The Star Wars model does indeed assure minimum standards for quality, consistency, and "appropriate" content (at least as defined by the IP creators/owners). Much of the fan Trek content is substandard in any number of ways ... and much truly awful or objectionable fan Trek saturates the internet because it literally costs next to nothing (in terms of resources and actual talent) to create and distribute.
I personally think ye olde monopoly privileges, as they are rigidly defined within trademarks and intellectual properties and patents and similar stuff, are antiquated and increasingly ineffective in the modern world ... that is, freedom of speech and extreme fan dedication (coupled with productive/analytical nerd tendencies) will produce an endless deluge of fan content, it cannot be stopped, many of the fans themselves are unforgivingly critical about maintaining quality and consistency and "spirit" of the product. I feel that actually using legal machinery to enforce territorial rights over shared (and loved) media will accomplish little more than alienating the fans and encouraging them to devise or migrate towards something else - in a way, this is actually exemplified by Pathfinder today, providing a popular alternative for those who passionately reject D&D 4E.
I suppose it isn't impossible for Wizbro to design a new "open license" format. They've already established a precedent for themselves with the old d20 system. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 19 Dec 2011 09:33:09 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 17:45:46
|
Give people a legal document - ANY legal document (including a law, amendment, etc) - and the first thing folks start doing is poking (loop)holes in it.
Thats why we never got a fan-license from WotC - they are in a much better legal position if they provide none (so no-one can worm there way around it). As much as I dislike that, I think it is/was the appropriate business decision (can't fault them for being smart).
Because of their past experiences, I truly doubt we will ever see them relinquish ay control, unless they out-right sell off bits of their property, which I also doubt they would ever do. Considering how poorly toys are selling this year (go take a look at your local Walmart), pretty soon, all Hasbro might have are their IPs.
Electronic media is all the rage now, and they either need to embrace it, or fall by the wayside. Printed game-books and physical toys to play with are fast becoming a thing of the past. Now is the time for them to reign their licenses in, not pass them around. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Dec 2011 17:47:07 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36910 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 19:28:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Give people a legal document - ANY legal document (including a law, amendment, etc) - and the first thing folks start doing is poking (loop)holes in it.
Thats why we never got a fan-license from WotC - they are in a much better legal position if they provide none (so no-one can worm there way around it). As much as I dislike that, I think it is/was the appropriate business decision (can't fault them for being smart).
Have you any facts to back up this assertation? It could be that the fan policy was simply back-burnered in favor of other things, like making money. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4470 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 20:42:37
|
@ Kris: I think the idea is noble, but I very much doubt the reality of this sort of situation ever happening. WotC just doesn't operate like that. Were the FR franchise start to fail (something I don't ever see happening) they'd most likely shelf it and wait a time period later to re-release the IP onto something new. Just look at they way they handled Dragonlance. At the beginning of this year, everyone's expectations were for WotC to release a 4E version of the fabled setting, yet....nothing. I just don't think that sort of IP (DL, mind you) would gain the kind of momentum Darksun or FR received.
But to go along with your theory and WotC desiceds to go about doing something like this, I still forsee some huge problems. First is continunity, which FR already has plenty holes in. Two different companies writing for the same setting where everything published is Canon is going to cause problems with continunity. Period. With no Realms-lore police making sure everything "fits", novels and game-supplements for 4E could really effect how other elements in 3E/prior editions with their novels works or what's there or not there and vise-versa. So not only would this cause friction within the setting on a corporate level, but think how bad it would further fraction the fan-base.
Also, I'm one who feels the rules of D&D are separate from the lore/story side of the Forgotten Realms (or any setting). The changes they implemented for 4eFR were not largely due to allow the rules of the game to be incorporated into the setting. Quite frankly, you could use 4E-mechanics in virtually any time period of the Realms without changing a think and still stick to 95% of the lore and continunity. You'd have to explain the different of elves (eladrin/elves/drow) and possibly some minor changes like Vision (infravision, darkvision, low-light, etc.) but that's about it.
Personally I feel the designers used 4th Edition as the best opportuinity to implement the drastic changes to the setting to obtain more fans. Even if 4E looked more like Star Wars: Saga or Pathfinder mechanics, we probably would've seen the same things (Spellplague, Mystra's death, Unther-Maztica-Mulhorandi gone, The Vilhon Reach destroyed, Lantan sunk, an inclusion of Genasi-Dragonborn- and-Drow as readily accessable races, etc). Mostly because that was their vision of the Realm's future. Actually, I think 4E's mechanics had, maybe, 5% impact on the reasons for the changes they made.
Now, what I think WotC should do is allow novels to be set pre-spellplague, so people gain closure with what has happened in the last 100 years. There would be a caveat about what can happen in the novel, such as not going against current lore but that shouldn't be so hard considering the huge lack of details 4E presents.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 20:58:14
|
quote:
Diffan
Now, what I think WotC should do is allow novels to be set pre-spellplague, so people gain closure with what has happened in the last 100 years. There would be a caveat about what can happen in the novel, such as not going against current lore but that shouldn't be so hard considering the huge lack of details 4E presents.
quote:
Diffan
I think the idea is noble, but I very much doubt the reality of this sort of situation ever happening. WotC just doesn't operate like that.
res ipsa loquitur, canon established at 1479DR and moving onward, case closed. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 20 Dec 2011 21:07:11 |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 21:04:39
|
An IP like a fantasy game world, is at the end of the day, only as successful as it is popular. You can maintain intellectual control and 'purity' and choke the IP to death (under the weight of unpopular decisions about the setting and it's most marketable characters say...) such that it becomes unprofitable, or you can open it up to a bit of competition in the hopes that the IP will once again thrive and therefore sales will increase for everyone using that IP. Grow the pie or consume the existing shrinking pie until it is gone. Personally, since Hasbro should not have the emotional tie to it's Realms IP that someone who created an IP would struggle against in opening up a personally beloved world to others, they could make such a decision based on profit alone.
Now, they COULD simply attempt to bring back key players in the initial creation and development of their flagship IP (whose opinions they overrode when making 4E changes) in the hopes that those people could undue enough damage done to restore the popularity of the IP. Something tells me they are likely to give this a shot. However, two things will keep this from being the 'magic bullet' solution to restoring lost market share.
1) Unless they are prepared to call a time warping 'do over' they are stuck with the key side effect of advancing their IP's timeline 100 years into the future - the death of a whole generation of characters in their successful novel line and profound changes to popular places and things throughout the world.
2) The simple fact that a healthy number of people who never took to 4E Realms did so, not just because they didn't accept the plot changes, but because they didn't care for the changes to the core game mechanics. No Realms re-boot fixes that.
So, if you have a group of consumers who simply won't buy your product unless you make RADICAL changes to your IP and/or rules system AND, if you make those changes you are likely to alienate the new consumer base you have generated by making your 4E changes in the first place, you can see that simply trying to undo some of them will not serve as your desired path to profit for your IP.
However, if you license (or sell - I never said you couldn't sell) some elements of your IP that you never plan to use again ANYWAY, you can build a profitable partnership with another company (say one you had a long history of past mutually beneficial collaboration with for example) that serves to boost the fortunes of your IP overall. Sure, there are risks, but in a universe where the influx of new gamers is drawn to the electronic medium, can you really afford NOT to take a gamble on getting back a meaningful percentage of your former customer base? Or, if you don't want them back, shouldn't you at least find a way to make some money off of the games they are playing instead of yours? |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 21:08:48
|
| Oh on 'res ipsa loquitor'. To quite a famous giant..."I do not think that word means what you think it means". Unless you weren't whipping out the legal meaning there. I'm a little (understandably) sensitive to the use of legal terminology in casual conversation. |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 22:03:20
|
My use of res ipsa loquitor was meant in the context that is taught in math and logic studies, literally meaning "the thing speaks for itself", the statement is self-evident, the argument is a (logical) tautology, the premise is the same as the conclusion. I had no idea that it has also evolved a complex legal doctrine - one which incidentally doesn't apply here.
Mathematical logic and legal rhetoric seem to favour applying the same classical Latin terminology in very different technically precise ways. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 20 Dec 2011 22:11:11 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36910 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 22:26:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kris the Grey
Oh on 'res ipsa loquitor'. To quite a famous giant..."I do not think that word means what you think it means". Unless you weren't whipping out the legal meaning there. I'm a little (understandably) sensitive to the use of legal terminology in casual conversation.
Coulda sworn it was a Spaniard that spoke those words... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 23:07:15
|
| You know you are quite right on their provenience. I stand corrected, my most humble apologies for the misattribution. (Um...I most certainly did NOT kill your father...only ten fingers here...please move along...). |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 00:00:56
|
| Well, the famous giant still had some good lines ... for a hippopotamic land mass. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 15:44:16
|
I would prefer a time-warping do-over. Reboot the entire setting, with Ed Greenwood having final say (after all, he is the person that knows where all the toys need to be placed, and how they interact). Give us any edition/rules set you want, but give us a classic gray-box style setting, without all the later anomalies and inconsistencies. If comics can do it, so too can a game company. Considering canon past events (Dawn cataclysm, Sundering, etc), that solution would not only be preferable (to me), but would also work within existing canon. The world has been 're-written' before, and it can easily be done so again. The situation with the Spellplague and magical chaos is the perfect set-up for just such a scenario.
No more earth-gods, no more craptastic modules, no more redundant regions - lets re-boot, and lets fix what little was wrong the first go-round. Hell, if they do that, I'd buy any rules they want to sell me (which I would just modify like crazy anyway... I always have).
FURTHERMORE, they CAN please all the people all the time (or most of them, at any rate). They can keep the good parts of the 4e setting - the Plagueands, Warlock Knights, 'Gritty' Waterdeep (), Dragonspawn and Genasi (which are actually nothing new), Eminence of Araunt, even returned Abeir (but put Maztica below or next to it), etc, etc... there is plenty of good bits in there, mixed with the mediocre - replace the broken parts of the original setting (NOT Ed's - I'm talking about the published Realms) with the good parts of 4e, and we could have something even better then either one.
Oh... and make the Imaskari dead again; one returned magical empire is one more then we needed. Talk about unnecessary redundancy.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Give people a legal document - ANY legal document (including a law, amendment, etc) - and the first thing folks start doing is poking (loop)holes in it.
Thats why we never got a fan-license from WotC - they are in a much better legal position if they provide none (so no-one can worm there way around it). As much as I dislike that, I think it is/was the appropriate business decision (can't fault them for being smart).
Have you any facts to back up this assertation? It could be that the fan policy was simply back-burnered in favor of other things, like making money.
Because we were promised it, and I know for a fact it was being worked on (at least the planning stage), and then it was cancelled (not back-burnered - we will NEVER see it, of this I am CERTAIN).
quote:
li·cense/#712;l#299;s#601;ns/
Noun:
A permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
Verb:
Grant a license to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.
Synonyms:
noun. licence - permit - permission - leave - authorization
verb. licence - authorize - permit - allow - authorise
Permission to do something, plain and simple. Why would they just give that away? they aren't our friends, they are company in the business of making money (like all companies are). Giving us a fan license does nothing for them, and any sort of license issued before (OGL) has come back and bitten them in the arse. Open licensing is a huge can of worms, and they would be smart to avoid it. They even took-back the little bit of leeway we had in regards to the RPGA - they found they couldn't even handle that amount of input. Why would they reign that in, if they were still going to give permission to fans? That move implies tighter restraints on the IP, not looser ones.
So it comes down to this - are they being intelligent, or are they being lazy? I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36910 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 18:19:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No more earth-gods,
Even though some of those Earth-gods were in Ed's Realms?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Give people a legal document - ANY legal document (including a law, amendment, etc) - and the first thing folks start doing is poking (loop)holes in it.
Thats why we never got a fan-license from WotC - they are in a much better legal position if they provide none (so no-one can worm there way around it). As much as I dislike that, I think it is/was the appropriate business decision (can't fault them for being smart).
Have you any facts to back up this assertation? It could be that the fan policy was simply back-burnered in favor of other things, like making money.
Because we were promised it, and I know for a fact it was being worked on (at least the planning stage), and then it was cancelled (not back-burnered - we will NEVER see it, of this I am CERTAIN).
Where is it stated it was cancelled?
Remember, a lot of us assumed the virtual gaming table was vaporware, because it was promised, it was back-burnered, and then we heard nothing for a long time... And now it looks like it's going to happen.
I am also convinced we're not going to see a fan policy -- but until I see a definitive statement on that, it's an opinion, not fact. If you're going to present something as fact, you need to be able to back it up.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So it comes down to this - are they being intelligent, or are they being lazy? I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The benefit of the doubt would be that they've decided to focus on that which gives them money, and to wait until their financial situation was more sound before tasking lawyers with handling something that won't make WotC a cent. That's the intelligent business decision. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 19:59:18
|
Considering the wealth of possibilities for Realms expansion found within the simplistic timeline notes in the Grand History of the Realms, I could easily see many new products resulting from merely reading some of those entries. Whether fan created or WotC created, it's about profiting from those endeavors. Anyone could take excerpts from that volume and expand upon it for home use, but to create something from that and make money off of it is simply something I don't ever foresee WotC allowing that unless it benefits them directly. And who can blame them?
That said, I do think WotC is missing out on taking advantage of old school Realms fans (and new school ones as well) by marketing strict Realms-content products that is edition-neutral, like TGHotR. That, imo, was one of the smartest marketing/product decisions they've made in a long time, so much so, I bought it for my 2e Realms game. I wish they'd focus on releasing more Realms content devoid of game mechanics and focused more on specific Realms detailing that could be plugged into any Realms game, from 0e to 4e. |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 21:18:40
|
quote:
Markustay
Permission to do something, plain and simple. Why would [Wizbro] just give that away? they aren't our friends, they are company in the business of making money (like all companies are). Giving us a fan license does nothing for them, and any sort of license issued before (OGL) has come back and bitten them in the arse. Open licensing is a huge can of worms, and they would be smart to avoid it.
How do you know the OGL licenses "bit WotC in the ass"? Without access to their proprietary sales data, I can only speculate based on anecdotal observations ... and from what I've seen, if the number of staff at WotC and the number of 3E sourcebooks published (only) by WotC are any indication (more than in any previous or subsequent D&D edition, to date), is that OGL was an overwhelming success which must have generated substantial revenues. Even in the face of WotC's constant knee-jerk complaints about "massive loss of revenues caused by persistent piracy". Hardly what I'd call a failure.
So, we have an example of past licensing which appears to have been profitable.
You said it yourself: Wizbro is in the business of making money. As I see it, they're sitting on a D&D IP which (in the face of PRPG competition) has slowly diminishing value, they have an opportunity to reposition that IP to exert better leverage in the market; ie: to increase it's value and possibly diminish the success of it's primary competitor (by attracting a larger segment of the market).
Also seems profitable to me, if done well. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Erudite
Acolyte
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 21:53:35
|
I'm not convinced the OGL made WotC a lot of money. On the contrary, it eroded their share of the marketplace. PFRPG is using WotC's IP successfully. That statement in itself Ayrik is why they probably don't want to do that again.
We're all armchair quarterbacks in this game. No one, not even myself, can speak with any authority on data we simply don't have. I made a decision years ago to go with what I enjoy playing around with (it is a game, afterall). If I get wrapped up in anything else, it kills it all for me.
oh, hello by the way. Sorry this was my second post! |
Edited by - Erudite on 21 Dec 2011 21:54:29 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36910 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 21:53:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Markustay
Permission to do something, plain and simple. Why would [Wizbro] just give that away? they aren't our friends, they are company in the business of making money (like all companies are). Giving us a fan license does nothing for them, and any sort of license issued before (OGL) has come back and bitten them in the arse. Open licensing is a huge can of worms, and they would be smart to avoid it.
How do you know the OGL licenses "bit WotC in the ass"? Without access to their proprietary sales data, I can only speculate based on anecdotal observations ... and from what I've seen, if the number of staff at WotC and the number of 3E sourcebooks published (only) by WotC are any indication (more than in any previous or subsequent D&D edition, to date), is that OGL was an overwhelming success which must have generated substantial revenues. Even in the face of WotC's constant knee-jerk complaints about "massive loss of revenues caused by persistent piracy". Hardly what I'd call a failure.
So, we have an example of past licensing which appears to have been profitable.
You said it yourself: Wizbro is in the business of making money. As I see it, they're sitting on a D&D IP which (in the face of PRPG competition) has slowly diminishing value, they have an opportunity to reposition that IP to exert better leverage in the market; ie: to increase it's value and possibly diminish the success of it's primary competitor (by attracting a larger segment of the market).
Also seems profitable to me, if done well.
Actually, I think friend Markus refers to the way Paizo capitalized on the OGL and is now outselling D&D 4E. If I was a WotC exec, that factoid would cause me to say most unpleasant things about the OGL. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Erudite
Acolyte
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 21:56:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Markustay
Permission to do something, plain and simple. Why would [Wizbro] just give that away? they aren't our friends, they are company in the business of making money (like all companies are). Giving us a fan license does nothing for them, and any sort of license issued before (OGL) has come back and bitten them in the arse. Open licensing is a huge can of worms, and they would be smart to avoid it.
How do you know the OGL licenses "bit WotC in the ass"? Without access to their proprietary sales data, I can only speculate based on anecdotal observations ... and from what I've seen, if the number of staff at WotC and the number of 3E sourcebooks published (only) by WotC are any indication (more than in any previous or subsequent D&D edition, to date), is that OGL was an overwhelming success which must have generated substantial revenues. Even in the face of WotC's constant knee-jerk complaints about "massive loss of revenues caused by persistent piracy". Hardly what I'd call a failure.
So, we have an example of past licensing which appears to have been profitable.
You said it yourself: Wizbro is in the business of making money. As I see it, they're sitting on a D&D IP which (in the face of PRPG competition) has slowly diminishing value, they have an opportunity to reposition that IP to exert better leverage in the market; ie: to increase it's value and possibly diminish the success of it's primary competitor (by attracting a larger segment of the market).
Also seems profitable to me, if done well.
Actually, I think friend Markus refers to the way Paizo capitalized on the OGL and is now outselling D&D 4E. If I was a WotC exec, that factoid would cause me to say most unpleasant things about the OGL.
I would need to see data on DDI subscriptions before I could say anything like that. There is not enough to go off of. Its all conjecture right now. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 22:14:21
|
Agreed, all the relevant information about sales figures and such is known only to WotC and Paizo.
I'm still of the opinion that PRGP's adoption of WotC's OGL was good for D&D 3E/3.5E, in theory it at least forced everybody to purchase WotC's core D&D rulebooks. I believe that - setting-specific content (like the Realms or Golarion) being set aside - the existence of both games encouraged healthy competition and a large range of options for customers; people would generally buy a bit into both product lines, and their intercompatibility promised a lot of variety in present and future products. I remember being attracted by this, in fact I'd be mildly miffed whenever a product didn't completely adhere to compatibility with the OGL SRD.
I feel the failure point didn't lie in this license, but in Wizbro's deliberate decision to discontinue it and promote a new D&D edition which is fundamentally incompatible with all previous versions. Creating their OGL license didn't create WotC's competition, intentionally terminating their own participation in the license did. They encouraged a schism in their own product line, many customers chose to align themselves with the competition (particularly those who judged this in an emotional context and felt angry, betrayed, or cheated that their "loyalty" was rewarded so poorly).
It might not be impossible to revise the OGL for compatibility with D&D 4E, and I think that those people who do have the secret numbers should consider the implications of such a decision. Their only other options for long-term survival are to essentially monopolize the niche - purchase Paizo outright (assuming it's for sale) - or to abandon the D&D IP entirely so they can focus on profitable brands. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 21 Dec 2011 22:24:56 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36910 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 00:19:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erudite
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Markustay
Permission to do something, plain and simple. Why would [Wizbro] just give that away? they aren't our friends, they are company in the business of making money (like all companies are). Giving us a fan license does nothing for them, and any sort of license issued before (OGL) has come back and bitten them in the arse. Open licensing is a huge can of worms, and they would be smart to avoid it.
How do you know the OGL licenses "bit WotC in the ass"? Without access to their proprietary sales data, I can only speculate based on anecdotal observations ... and from what I've seen, if the number of staff at WotC and the number of 3E sourcebooks published (only) by WotC are any indication (more than in any previous or subsequent D&D edition, to date), is that OGL was an overwhelming success which must have generated substantial revenues. Even in the face of WotC's constant knee-jerk complaints about "massive loss of revenues caused by persistent piracy". Hardly what I'd call a failure.
So, we have an example of past licensing which appears to have been profitable.
You said it yourself: Wizbro is in the business of making money. As I see it, they're sitting on a D&D IP which (in the face of PRPG competition) has slowly diminishing value, they have an opportunity to reposition that IP to exert better leverage in the market; ie: to increase it's value and possibly diminish the success of it's primary competitor (by attracting a larger segment of the market).
Also seems profitable to me, if done well.
Actually, I think friend Markus refers to the way Paizo capitalized on the OGL and is now outselling D&D 4E. If I was a WotC exec, that factoid would cause me to say most unpleasant things about the OGL.
I would need to see data on DDI subscriptions before I could say anything like that. There is not enough to go off of. Its all conjecture right now.
This has been reported more than once, based on sales by distributors. That's not conjecture. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36910 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 00:29:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I'm still of the opinion that PRGP's adoption of WotC's OGL was good for D&D 3E/3.5E, in theory it at least forced everybody to purchase WotC's core D&D rulebooks. I believe that - setting-specific content (like the Realms or Golarion) being set aside - the existence of both games encouraged healthy competition and a large range of options for customers; people would generally buy a bit into both product lines, and their intercompatibility promised a lot of variety in present and future products. I remember being attracted by this, in fact I'd be mildly miffed whenever a product didn't completely adhere to compatibility with the OGL SRD.
I feel the failure point didn't lie in this license, but in Wizbro's deliberate decision to discontinue it and promote a new D&D edition which is fundamentally incompatible with all previous versions. Creating their OGL license didn't create WotC's competition, intentionally terminating their own participation in the license did. They encouraged a schism in their own product line, many customers chose to align themselves with the competition (particularly those who judged this in an emotional context and felt angry, betrayed, or cheated that their "loyalty" was rewarded so poorly).
Actually, I agree across the board. I personally think the OGL was a brilliant maneuver, and that it did good things for roleplaying in general and for WotC in particular. However, since they moved away from it and Paizo didn't, it means that in a way, WotC is competing with their own creation. Any gaming dollar spent on a Paizo product is not going to WotC, and whether or not you accept multiple reports saying Paizo's outselling WotC, it's still a fact that Paizo is doing very well for itself.
As I've pointed out before, once TSR/WotC dominated the RPG market -- everyone else together still didn't come close to them. Since the advent of 4E, they've had some serious competition -- and much of it is because of the OGL. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 00:51:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No more earth-gods ...
If you remove the Earth-gods, though, then you're removing one of the fundamental aspects built into the Realms -- that of it's "forgotten" portal connections to Earth. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
A modest proposal...for a many platformed Realms
