4E-DDI Tools Hurting 3rd Party Publishers?

[Asbestos]

So, I went over to One Bad Egg's website to grab ideas for a campaign I'm working on and I discovered that they've stopped publishing. Given that sales barely broke 300 for their 'best sellers' this is hardly surprising, it's sad though because their class, the Witchdoctor, is probably one of the better (if not best) 3rd party classes I've yet to see in terms of design. Anyway, in their blog post detailing why they stopped publishing, found here: http://www.onebadegg.com/egg/ , they mention things like the Monster Builder and Character Builder and how those tools made things difficult for them. For example, if you have a monster builder why would you buy monsters from a 3rd party? I find it interesting because I hadn't thought that the WotC tools might be working against 3rd parties.

Edit: Forgive my typos, the iTouch is not the ideal tool to post with.

[jmbrown]

It's not surprising as this is the first time Wizards actually got the software side of D&D right. I remember the character builder demo from 3.0 that was never finalized in any form. Even the new GSL license was designed to give publishers less power over publishing 4E material.

I can't blame them for it. The OGL was both a fantastic idea and a shot-in-the-foot business wise. As far as monsters go, perhaps they should have taken a different approach than the traditional list-of-monsters-and-how-they-fight. My favorite part of books like Draconomicon and Open Grave is the ecology side of monsters which the traditional 4E Monster Manuals don't have.

The stats to create a monster are right smacking in the DMG. What isn't provided is how these monsters behave in the generic D&D setting and that's what I'm most interested in.

[AllisterH]

DDI really cuts the 3pp off at the knees.

Think about it for a moment...In the 3.x OGL days, the difference between using a 3pp book and a WOTC supplement was NOTHING.

The cd-rom that came with the original 3.0 PHB was a POS and never updated (to my knowledge) and thus, if a person could integrate ToB:BotNS into their campaign, they certainly could integrate their favourite 3PP resource.

Now though?

The Monster Builder makes a mockery of any monsterbook (and those were always popular) and without access to the character builder, WOTC's supplementary material is much easier to keep track and integrate into your campaign than a 3pp resource.

[Mando Knight]

It makes sense, and I don't blame WotC for doing it:

It's hurting the 3rd party publishers because the 1st party material is just as good, is available more easily, is better advertised, is easy to use, and is generally kept up to date. If the other publishers can't keep up or step it up when WotC decides to improve their material, then they weren't strong enough in the first place.

If you want to survive in the D&D 4e publishing business, you'll have to cut your costs, improve your products, learn how to make your stuff compatible with the 1st-party material, and advertise.

Monster books could come with documents for adding their monster files to the Monster Builder (though those could easily be isolated and torrented or whatever). Player options are harder: there is currently no way to fully add custom elements into the Character Builder. Really, I'd like to see WotC implement an AdventureTool that lets the DM/PC create new elements for importing into the Character Builder.

[Asbestos]

Player options are harder: there is currently no way to fully add custom elements into the Character Builder. Really, I'd like to see WotC implement an AdventureTool that lets the DM/PC create new elements for importing into the Character Builder.

Actually it is possible, it's just clunky and the end result doesn't involve auto-calculations.

[R. Shackleford]

4e itself isn't the most friendly towards homebrew/3rd party content to begin with.

I think technology marching on hurts as well. PDFs beat the tar out of lugging around books, first or third party. That should be 3rd party designer's medium. The financial practicality and legality isn't something I know anything about though.

I think once custom content can be functionally added into DDI, it's going to open some sort of flood gate. One thing stopping it is, again, 4e's ability to make 60% of mechanical homebrew mechanically redundant. At least, in regards to the character builder.

[Asbestos]

4e itself isn't the most friendly towards homebrew/3rd party content to begin with.

I think technology marching on hurts as well. PDFs beat the tar out of lugging around books, first or third party. That should be 3rd party designer's medium. The financial practicality and legality isn't something I know anything about though.

I think once custom content can be functionally added into DDI, it's going to open some sort of flood gate. One thing stopping it is, again, 4e's ability to make 60% of mechanical homebrew mechanically redundant. At least, in regards to the character builder.

Luckily most 3rd party publishers, One Bad Egg included, go the PDF route. Goodman and Mongoose's publishing of dead tree copies, some of them hardcover, makes me worry for them. Not only are books more expensive to produce than PDFs, but they are impossible to edit once they have been released. Some otherwise good Goodman Games books are rife with errors that could've been avoided with one or two more passes by the editor and those errors are immortalized in the printed books. Meanwhile, Alluria (a much smaller publisher) updated one of their more popular PDFs several times within a month after customer response brought various errors to light. Updateable PDFs are an advantage that 3rd parties have over WotC and one they really need to exploit.

[Tyndmyr]

If you want to survive in the D&D 4e publishing business, you'll have to cut your costs, improve your products, learn how to make your stuff compatible with the 1st-party material, and advertise.

GL with that. Licensing issues alone get in the way of compatibility, as you want to keep your stuff distinctly different from WoTCs to avoid lawsuits.

If a "best seller" is selling 300 copies, I suspect cutting costs isn't going to make it profitable, or provide much in the way of advertising money.

[dsmiles]

So, I went over to One Bad Egg's website to grab ideas for a campaign I'm working on and I discovered that they've stopped publishing. Given that sales barely broke 300 for their 'best sellers' this is hardly surprising, it's sad though because their class, the Witchdoctor, is probably one of the better (if not best) 3rd party classes I've yet to see in terms of design. Anyway, in their blog post detailing why they stopped publishing, found here: http://www.onebadegg.com/egg/ , they mention things like the Monster Builder and Character Builder and how those tools made things difficult for them. For example, if you have a monster builder why would you buy monsters from a 3rd party? I find it interesting because I hadn't thought that the WotC tools might be working against 3rd parties.

Edit: Forgive my typos, the iTouch is not the ideal tool to post with.

I believe this is WOTC's objective. They don't just want some of the DnD profits, they want all of the DnD profits. Damn mega-corporations, always trying to drive the little guys out of business. White Wolf (Sword and Sorcery) isn't even going to publish 4e material.

EDIT: @Asbestos: I like my dead tree copies. We (my group) prefer to not have a laptop at the table. We find it distracting.

[Jack_Banzai]

I believe this is WOTC's objective. They don't just want some of the DnD profits, they want all of the DnD profits. Damn mega-corporations

I'm sitting at my desk trying not to laugh, seriously, out loud at this declaration of WotC's "mega-corporate" status.

[Tyndmyr]

I hadn't really spoken to the pdf issue...but I agree, I prefer actual, physical copies. I own the majority of official books in dead-tree format, as well as a decent selection of third party books.

PDFs do have some advantages, but you just can't flip through as conveniently.

[oxybe]

I believe this is WOTC's objective. They don't just want some of the DnD profits, they want all of the DnD profits. Damn mega-corporations, always trying to drive the little guys out of business. White Wolf (Sword and Sorcery) isn't even going to publish 4e material.

damn companies wanting to make profits off their stuff! crazy i tells ya! why back in my day we'd backupt ourselves twice over just for the heck of it! now these sissy companies with their "oh no, we want to stay financially afloat so we'll go take steps to protect our product & it's identity".



seriously though, the OGL was a good concept but horrible follow through. when a competing company can make what amounts to a homebrewed version of your game and resell it as their own, i start raising eyebrows.

then again, WotC aren't in any way required to support 3rd party people and well within their rights to limit things however they see fit. i feel for these guys. i've heard good things about them but WotC isn't obliged to do anything.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm sitting at my desk trying not to laugh, seriously, out loud at this declaration of WotC's "mega-corporate" status.

Hey, chummer, those fragged-up hoop-heads are closer than we'll ever be. Me and Fastjack are planning on hitting 'em soon.

Can't keep a good runner down. ;-)

[dsmiles]

@Tyndmyr: Yeah, my bad. Wrong name in my head at the time. Fixed it, though...

[Asbestos]

I believe this is WOTC's objective. They don't just want some of the DnD profits, they want all of the DnD profits. Damn mega-corporations, always trying to drive the little guys out of business. White Wolf (Sword and Sorcery) isn't even going to publish 4e material.

EDIT: @Tyndmyr: I like my dead tree copies. We (my group) prefer to not have a laptop at the table. We find it distracting.

Actually 3rd party publishers only serve to help the brand which in turn helps WotC. It's more of a commensal relationship than a competitive one.

[Green Bean]

I'm sitting at my desk trying not to laugh, seriously, out loud at this declaration of WotC's "mega-corporate" status.

Hey, you may laugh, but trying to get more customers by improving their products is clearly a sign that WotC is burning babies for fuel!

[Mando Knight]

I'm sitting at my desk trying not to laugh, seriously, out loud at this declaration of WotC's "mega-corporate" status.

WotC itself isn't, but it's owned by (and thus gets its budget from) one of the largest game and toy companies in the world, second only to Mattel and its blonde omni-occupational doll.

[Duke of URL]

When I saw the original demos of the "D&D Insider", I had pretty much expected this to be the end result. 3rd-party publishers are going to have a hard time with 4e in terms of mechanics, because without the ability to get their mechanics into DDI, a large portion of their potential user base is going to say, "gee that looks great, but..."

Between DDI and the 4e GSL, the only role I see for 3rd party vendors for 4e is to publish adventures and/or campaign settings. If they want to publish new mechanics, then they'll need to find a way to negotiate with WotC to get them added as DDI content, and that's fraught with all kinds of problems along the lines of how the 3rd-party publishers will get paid for such content via DDI (if at all).

[Draz74]

I'm sitting at my desk trying not to laugh, seriously, out loud at this declaration of WotC's "mega-corporate" status.

Um. The post didn't actually say WotC was a "mega-corporation." It left the subject of the curse ambiguous.

Apply it to Hasbro, and it actually makes perfect sense.

[Jack_Banzai]

Um. The post didn't actually say WotC was a "mega-corporation." It left the subject of the curse ambiguous.

Apply it to Hasbro, and it actually makes perfect sense.

Assuming that WotC enjoys the budgetary freedoms of Hasbro is a large and (probably) unfounded assumption.

[Tyndmyr]

I doubt they do. However, I have no trouble believing that the mega-corporation attitude is foisted on WOTC by Mattel in the belief that it'll lead to more $$.

That said, while third party stuff may not do a lot for wizards directly, I believe they are better served by having the core game everyone expands off of, than forcing the third party publishers to publish competing products.

[nepphi]

Honestly, this is an example of primary versus peripheral economics. Wizards is producing a core, primary product in their flagship rpg. These third party publishers are nice to have around, in that they allow much more content than Wizards can generate on their own, but their existence isn't vital to the product itself. They're providing peripheral content at best, and if the core product has evolved to the point they can't develop for it, it's time to negotiate with some of their fellow 3pp groups and consolidate, maybe make their own systems or games. Or as some have said, change the focus of what they publish. It's rough, but it's hardly surprising or tragic.

[Thajocoth]

Isn't anything that's not first party homebrew? I would think most people wouldn't play with homebrew material. I find the idea of charging money for homebrew content to be odd, personally. Also, this is the first I've heard of anyone selling "third party" material for 4e.

I'm pretty sure I'm the average case here. I'm pretty sure THAT is the real reason, above everything else.

[Asbestos]

Isn't anything that's not first party homebrew? I would think most people wouldn't play with homebrew material. I find the idea of charging money for homebrew content to be odd, personally. Also, this is the first I've heard of anyone selling "third party" material for 4e.

I'm pretty sure I'm the average case here. I'm pretty sure THAT is the real reason, above everything else.

Why is charging money for access to your intellectual property odd? There are a number of companies liscensed to sell 4e material and several Goodman Games and Mongoose books can be found at your FLGS alongside the WotC stuff. Alternatively websites like rpg.drivethroughstuff sell 3rd party PDFs (and used to sell the WotC PDFs as well I think)

Edit: Its the people that refuse to play with any 'homebrew' or 'houserules' and only use official stuff that I personally find incredibly odd and strange.

[dsmiles]

Isn't anything that's not first party homebrew? I would think most people wouldn't play with homebrew material. I find the idea of charging money for homebrew content to be odd, personally. Also, this is the first I've heard of anyone selling "third party" material for 4e.

I'm pretty sure I'm the average case here. I'm pretty sure THAT is the real reason, above everything else.

More people prefer homebrew than you would think. I think I used my Mongoose supplements more than anything else. Also, had my own homebrew for a lot of things, and my players loved it.

[Tyndmyr]

Third party and homebrew are similar, but not exactly the same. Third party tends to be more of a complete, nicely packaged product.

It's obviously not true 100% of the time, as there is the occasional crappy book or excellent homebrew, but the general perception is Homebrew: something whipped up for free by one-a few players. Third party: Something published, generally for money, by a non-WOTC publisher.

Just because it's non-WOTC doesn't make it bad. I've purchased many a third party product I'd rate higher than a few WOTC books Ive bought.

[oxybe]

the main split between homebrew-3rd party-parent, IMO is this:

Homebrew: generally made for a personal game. essentially someone's hacked version of D&D that can be imported into your games. the main problem is that GuyX's homebrew was tailored to his game and it's specific ramifications on my game are hard to judge when it comes to importing it into my game.

i also can't expect errata should something be broken in my game because it works fine in his, and he's got no reason to "fix" it. also, free.

3rd party: usually made by professionals or long-time hobbyists. unlike homebrew, 3rd party stuff goes off the "default" game assumptions, so it's easier to import into most games. since they are getting paid for their services you expect something better tested then homebrew but most 3rd party companies don't have the resources for extended playtests or even errata so some stuff can be broken out of the box and left broken until the customer fixes it himself, or goes online for a homebrew fix.

larger 3rd parties can break this mould, but most (from my knowledge) will dedicate their staff on the next project instead of going back to review their old stuff (unless a large enough mass of consumers have the same problem)

parent: the parent company's stuff should be easiest to import into your games, will have the most support for older products (usually in the form of updates & errata) and should be the better tested product.

now there are sometimes a few bugs in the system. the 3rd ed caster > melee disparity (when you leave the assumed Fightank/skill rogue/healbot/blastard) and stuff like the original Orcus-killer ranger or Orbizard in 4th ed will sometimes sneak through the cracks, but generally speaking the parent company will go to some length to address customer issues.

some issues can be left untreated for a while, but most glaring issues should be addressed.

either way, your mileage will vary on all three. these are my thoughts anyways.

[Alex Star]

The only people 3rd party publishers have to blame is Paizo. The moment they decided to rename DnD 3.5 and rerelease it as thier own IP therefor abusing the OGL.

The moment it became apparent to WotC that their avid 3rd Party Publishers were willing to abuse their OGL and attempt to become a competetor WotC did the only thing they could. Protect their IP. Gamers always complain about how competition spurs growth. Well here you have it a 3pp forced WotC to vastly improve it's product and the delivery of it

[Tyndmyr]

Pathfinder probably was a factor in that decision, yes.

However, abandoning 3.5, and taking a more exclusionary approach to 4e probably only pushes more people towards pathfinder. Lots and lots of people enjoyed, and still enjoy 3.5. Lots of people also have a fondness for buying new, shiny books for their favorite system.

If they had continued to update 3.5, but not taken any care at all to make the new 3.5 updates worked with pathfinder, they would have made pathfinder drastically less attractive to the average 3.5 gamer.

IMO, D&D should have split. 4e should have been one system, 3.5 another. Would have likely worked out pretty awesome for them.

[dsmiles]

Well here you have it a 3pp forced WotC to vastly improve it's product and the delivery of it

I don't know about "vastly improve." Maybe you should've said "vastly change." Not everyone will agree that 4e is an improvement over 3.5e. Hell, I still don't agree that 2e was an improvement over ADnD.