How do I tell if a DnD book is first or third party?

[pabelfly]

If I'm looking at a rulebook, what should I be looking at to be able to tell if the book is first party or third-party?

[Sir Chuckles]

If it's published by Wizard of the Coast or someone else. WotC books are first party.

[Jack_Simth]

If it's published by Wizard of the Coast or someone else. WotC books are first party.
Yep. Basically, read the copyright notice that always exists on that title page (WotC does it as a "Credits Page"). If it's by Wizards of the Coast, Inc, then it's 1st party D&D.

[pabelfly]

Okay, thank you. Any exceptions I should know about?

[heavyfuel]

Okay, thank you. Any exceptions I should know about?

Dragonlance books are kind of in this "second party" gray area.

The first book, Dragonlance Campaign Setting, is a 1st party book, published by WotC

However, other books for the campaign (such as War of the Lance and Legends of the Twins) were published by Sovereign Press (maybe not all of them) but they bear a "Official Wizards of the Coast Licensed Product" badge on the credit page.

[Biggus]

Kingdoms of Kalamar is also an official D&D licensed product, but not produced by WotC. Most people don't consider it official D&D material, but some DMs allow it

[HouseRules]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings

Birthright
www.birthright.net

Blackmoor
blackmoor.mystara.us
blackmoorcastle.com
->Mystara
pandius.com
wiki.mystara.net
--->Hollow World
--->Savage Cost
--->Thunder Rift

Council of Wyrms

Dark Sun
www.athas.org

Dragon Fist

Dragon Lance
www.dragonlance.com

Eberron

Forgotten Realms
->Al-Qadim
->The Horde
->Kara-Tur
->Malatra: The Living Jungle
->Maztica

Ghostwalk

Greyhawk

Jakandor

Kingdoms of Kalamar

Lankhmar
www.scrollsoflankhmar.com

Mahasarpa

Nentir Vale

Pelinore

Planescape
curlie.org/Games/Roleplaying/Genres/Fantasy/Dungeons_%26_Dragons/Campaign_Settings/Planescape
www.acaeum.com/ps

Ravenloft
www.fraternityofshadows.com
www.kargatane.com
->Masque of the Read Death

Ravnica

Rokugan
www.l5r.com

Spelljammer
www.spelljammer.org

Warcraft

Wilderlands of High Fantasy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list of all the official campaign settings from Wikipedia.
Many of them are licensed to 3rd party.
Some of those settings are owned by 3rd parties.
Some of the ones that are owned by 3rd party have branch off into new game systems.

Licensed 3rd Party used to be a good thing when there was too many customers and the business does not want to expand temporarily to deal with too many customers wanting different things.
The problem with supporting so many campaigns is why AD&D have problems (though, it was not the primary problem with the finance).
Splitting the campaigns and licensing them to 3rd party was the deal starting with 3rd edition.

[Psyren]

Dragonlance books are kind of in this "second party" gray area.

The first book, Dragonlance Campaign Setting, is a 1st party book, published by WotC

However, other books for the campaign (such as War of the Lance and Legends of the Twins) were published by Sovereign Press (maybe not all of them) but they bear a "Official Wizards of the Coast Licensed Product" badge on the credit page.

/obligatory

The "second party" is you, the customer. For Dragonlance, there is one first-party book (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) and then a bunch of licensed third party sourcebooks that were ultimately made by someone else.

[Zombulian]

I think the Iron Kingdoms campaign setting is licensed third party but it’s been a while.

[Segev]

/obligatory

The "second party" is you, the customer. For Dragonlance, there is one first-party book (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) and then a bunch of licensed third party sourcebooks that were ultimately made by someone else.

I just want to thank you for clearing that up so I didn't have to. I get really irked when people use terminology that has distinct meaning incorrectly. It really muddies language. I don't mind individuals doing it innocently, but it does grate when it's something I see frequently, because it means ignorance is spreading, and that has a tendency to cause problems down the line. :smallannoyed:

So thanks for doing this to clarify for those who didn't know!

[schreier]

Expedition to ravenloft is first party, but the rest of ravenloft (of the third edition variety) is third party

[heavyfuel]

/obligatory

The "second party" is you, the customer. For Dragonlance, there is one first-party book (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) and then a bunch of licensed third party sourcebooks that were ultimately made by someone else.


I just want to thank you for clearing that up so I didn't have to. I get really irked when people use terminology that has distinct meaning incorrectly. It really muddies language. I don't mind individuals doing it innocently, but it does grate when it's something I see frequently, because it means ignorance is spreading, and that has a tendency to cause problems down the line. :smallannoyed:

So thanks for doing this to clarify for those who didn't know!

I know that. That's why I put the term inside quotation marks, a common use of this punctuation, which serves simply to indicate that a word (or expression) isn't being used in its literal meaning, as in, the books aren't first party books, but aren't third party in the sense that most people think of third party books either, since it bears the WotC seal of approval.

It's not a sign of ignorance spreading, it was shorthand for the explanation in the above paragraph. Something now defeated by me having to explain to you what I thought was common knowledge.

[HouseRules]

I know that. That's why I put the term inside quotation marks, a common use of this punctuation, which serves simply to indicate that a word (or expression) isn't being used in its literal meaning, as in, the books aren't first party books, but aren't third party in the sense that most people think of third party books either, since it bears the WotC seal of approval.

It's not a sign of ignorance spreading, it was shorthand for the explanation in the above paragraph. Something now defeated by me having to explain to you what I thought was common knowledge.

Alternative convention includes using italics.
Or for this board specifically, some insist on making it blue.

Many of the campaign settings are still owned by their creators.
A single book may be first party for 3E, but with the Open Game License (OGL), each of those Campaign Authors believe that they could expand their own campaign in a style that fits better.
Thus, they develop their own content through the OGL.
It makes their campaign expand in their own style, but also makes them financially independent.
They don't want to experience some of TSR financial issues with the copyright sue left and right draining all the coffers.

[Psyren]

I know that.

I never said you didn't, but I routinely see Dragonlance and Ravenloft referred to as "second party" (with or without quotes) around here, so some people (again, not necessarily you) don't appear to know the distinction. I was quoting you not as a direct reply to you, but as the jumping-off point for my own explanation.

[heavyfuel]

I never said you didn't, but I routinely see Dragonlance and Ravenloft referred to as "second party" (with or without quotes) around here, so some people (again, not necessarily you) don't appear to know the distinction. I was quoting you not as a direct reply to you, but as the jumping-off point for my own explanation.

I think it's simply people taking a mathematical approach to language, as in, if something is between a first and a third party book, it must be second party, the mathematical average between 1 and 3.

I don't think it's a bad approach, since it does convey meaning well enough.

[Psyren]

I think it's simply people taking a mathematical approach to language, as in, if something is between a first and a third party book, it must be second party, the mathematical average between 1 and 3.

I don't think it's a bad approach, since it does convey meaning well enough.

I know the meaning that is attempting to be conveyed - "these sources can be seen as more legitimate than other third-party published content."

Part of my issue though is that I disagree with that message, or at least the motives behind it. Generally the term "second party" is used by folks who want their DM to greenlight poorly-designed material like Ravenloft's Devices or Dragonlance's Dynamic Priest. It implies a higher level of quality control or testing that these rules elements were unlikely to have undergone compared to any other third party book or homebrew. WotC licensed their brand to those properties because Dragonlance and Ravenloft are much more closely tied to D&D as settings, not because any of the mechanics in these books went through any kind of formal playtesting by the primary design team.

I view it as disingenuous because the folks citing this stuff tend to be very selective about it - e.g. they'll bring up Ravenloft Devices, but pretty much all of them neglect to mention that you have to be part of one Ravenloft-specific family to even know what they are, much less take the feats needed to create them.

[heavyfuel]

I know the meaning that is attempting to be conveyed - "these sources can be seen as more legitimate than other third-party published content."

Part of my issue though is that I disagree with that message, or at least the motives behind it. Generally the term "second party" is used by folks who want their DM to greenlight poorly-designed material like Ravenloft's Devices or Dragonlance's Dynamic Priest. It implies a higher level of quality control or testing that these rules elements were unlikely to have undergone compared to any other third party book or homebrew. WotC licensed their brand to those properties because Dragonlance and Ravenloft are much more closely tied to D&D as settings, not because any of the mechanics in these books went through any kind of formal playtesting by the primary design team.

I view it as disingenuous because the folks citing this stuff tend to be very selective about it - e.g. they'll bring up Ravenloft Devices, but pretty much all of them neglect to mention that you have to be part of one Ravenloft-specific family to even know what they are, much less take the feats needed to create them.

That's a fair issue to have. I don't personally find anything in Dragonlance to be particularly broken except (for obvious reasons) Irresistible Spell, though I'm not at all familiar with Ravenloft to give an opinion.

Matter of fact, one my favorite classes for NPCs is the Master from legends of the twin I think. And I'd never have given the books a second look if not for their "official third party" status. There's some good in them having a gray area status. DMs can ban if they're uncomfortable with the idea, but they can also allow for some fun choices.

[Psyren]

DMs can ban if they're uncomfortable with the idea, but they can also allow for some fun choices.

This wording is exactly what I mean - the distinction between "uncomfortable DMs can choose to ban it" and "permissive DMs can choose to allow it" is subtle, but meaningful. Third-party, which this is (licensed or not) tends to default to the latter, while first-party tends to default to the former.

[Mordaedil]

I guess the idea is that first party is Wizard's produced and published, third party is WotC approved publishers and non-approved publishers alike, while second party is houserules or anything the community produces.

[Troacctid]

If it's produced by someone in the community other than you personally, I think that's still a third party.

For my part, I think "canon vs. non-canon" is a more useful distinction than "first vs. third party." There is first-party material that is not canonical, like the Diablo II sourcebook and d20 Modern, and third-party material that is canonical, like Paizo's run of Dragon Magazine.

[Bronk]

If it's produced by someone in the community other than you personally, I think that's still a third party.

For my part, I think "canon vs. non-canon" is a more useful distinction than "first vs. third party." There is first-party material that is not canonical, like the Diablo II sourcebook and d20 Modern, and third-party material that is canonical, like Paizo's run of Dragon Magazine.

I go by "first party, licensed, and homebrew" personally. I've usually thought of 'licensed' as second party, but that's mostly because of people talking about it on this forum. Maybe that's starting to change with some of the more vocal people no longer visiting the site? I could go either way, I'm not ensconced in the publishing scene...

[Crake]

/obligatory

The "second party" is you, the customer. For Dragonlance, there is one first-party book (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) and then a bunch of licensed third party sourcebooks that were ultimately made by someone else.

Second party publishing is actually a thing though, basically companies liscenced to exclusively publish for a certain system, typically in exchange for better deals from said system's owner. Paizo is generally the typical example of a 3.5dnd 2nd party publisher with their dragon/dungeon magazine, and pre-pathfinder golarian stuff.

Sure, it doesn't adhere to the narrative I, you, they convention, but that's just how things go.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Sure, it doesn't adhere to the narrative I, you, they convention, but that's just how things go.
This. Language evolves, people get creative, extrapolate things that maybe, technically didn't work before, but hey look, now it does! Pedantry is only useful if you have a very clear idea of the terminology you're using, and this clear idea is standardized (as in technical writing, mathematics, RAW arguments on D&D forums). Which, in this case, is not the case.

[Zombulian]

I'll admit, I didn't expect this thread to turn into GITP Civil War: Prescriptivists vs. Descriptivists.

[nedz]

I think it's simply people taking a mathematical approach to language, as in, if something is between a first and a third party book, it must be second party, the mathematical average between 1 and 3.

/Since we are nit picking/

It's people taking an arithmetical approach to language.

Grammars can be defined mathematically.

[CharonsHelper]

/obligatory

The "second party" is you, the customer. For Dragonlance, there is one first-party book (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) and then a bunch of licensed third party sourcebooks that were ultimately made by someone else.

I believe that's not always the case.

Second party could be if WoTC didn't publish it, but they were involved in the publishing. Frankly - it seems applicable to the bulk of the Dragonlance stuff.

What exactly "second party" is seems to vary by industry.