Paizo no longer publishing Dragon or Dungeon mags

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:47 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
I can attest to that. Up untill about year 2000 or so, I had never heard of EnWorld, Dragonsfoot or not had the idea occur to me at all that there were any online gaming communities.

I spent most of my time in game shops/ book stores talking to people face to face. A mode of communication I still prefer over the limitations of online methods. ^_^

Just so.

As another point, though, only a slightly larger percentage of RPGers read paper gaming magazines, subscribe to them. At its greatest, when the D&D game audience in the US and Canada was c. 8.5 million, The Dragon magazine sales were only about 125K per issue with a 4.something pass-around factor.

Cheers,

Gary

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:50 pm

Col_Pladoh wrote:
Seeing as how Hasbro had WotC divest itself of the chain of game stores that were acquired and being increased, competition with Games Workshop is no longer likely.

Ahh, that's right. I forgot about the former stores (because I didn't have one local to me, so the loss was a non-concern deal.) Perhaps it was part of a larger plan back then... hmm, no, that would be giving them too much credit.

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:56 pm

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
...

Can you please elaborate on this? I can see that applying to the d20 license, but I don't understand how the OGL limits diversity.

Ot should be obvious from the number of non-D20 RPGs that have converted to a D20-like system using the OGL, that done in (generally vain) hopes of cashing in on the D&D game's audience.

Cheers,

Gary

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:01 pm

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
...

Can you please elaborate on this? I can see that applying to the d20 license, but I don't understand how the OGL limits diversity.

There are only so many ways one can vary a d20 roll. It doesn't leave room for percentile systems, or even systems using alternative die or some other random determination method.

Why use the OGL if your going to make a system that uses another method? It's unneccessary at that juncture. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote:
Seeing as how Hasbro had WotC divest itself of the chain of game stores that were acquired and being increased, competition with Games Workshop is no longer likely.

Indeed not, when you consider that at least GW let buy the figure you actually want, rather than a random box that might have something useful in it.
_________________
History teaches us that men behave wisely once they've exhausted all other alternatives.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:03 pm

Oops! Double post.
_________________
History teaches us that men behave wisely once they've exhausted all other alternatives.

dcs · Post by **dcs** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:15 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Why use the OGL if your going to make a system that uses another method?

Spells! D&D has lots of them and, in my opinion, the hardest part of designing a new fantasy game is spells.

If one is going for a different system and different genre, then there's probably no reason to use the OGL.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:21 pm

Magic in general... and monsters. Those monsters are rather iconic, in many ways. You know, goblins, orcs, kobolds, ogres, trolls... of course, one can take a more folklorish way, but the average gamer is gonna want the D&D version, since that's the staple. Even a few changes can have serious negative reaction.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:30 pm

dcs wrote:
Spells! D&D has lots of them and, in my opinion, the hardest part of designing a new fantasy game is spells.

If one is going for a different system and different genre, then there's probably no reason to use the OGL.

Now that depends. Does the purported game have a unique and different spell for a variety of situations? Or does said spell system give one a generic 'construct an effect' method and let people invent their own effects?

The latter is much easier. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:32 pm

Col_Pladoh wrote:
It should be obvious from the number of non-D20 RPGs that have converted to a D20-like system using the OGL, that done in (generally vain) hopes of cashing in on the D&D game's audience.

Oh, I see what you're getting at. I thought you meant a limiting problem with the terms of the OGL, itself, rather than how people have chosen to use it. I'd call that a problem with judgment, rather than a problem with the OGL.

gideon_thorne wrote:
There are only so many ways one can vary a d20 roll. It doesn't leave room for percentile systems, or even systems using alternative die or some other random determination method.

How does the OGL restrict you to a d20 roll or prevent you from using it with a percentile system? (I don't think it does.)

gideon_thorne wrote:
Why use the OGL if your going to make a system that uses another method? It's unneccessary at that juncture.

To use terms, etc. that might otherwise be protected under copyright or trademark law is one reason I can think of. You needn't adopt the mechanics that go with those terms.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:44 pm

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
How does the OGL restrict you to a d20 roll or prevent you from using it with a percentile system? (I don't think it does.)

It doesn't specifically, but why use a d20 based idea to make something thats not d20 based? ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:52 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
It doesn't specifically, but why use a d20 based idea to make something thats not d20 based?

You wouldn't need to use to the OGL if you're not interested in existing open content terminology or open content mechanics. If you are interested in using either of the above, then adopting the OGL might be attractive.

Neither case causes the OGL to limit diversity in gaming, though...

Dragonhelm · Post by **Dragonhelm** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:56 pm

Col_Pladoh wrote:
Here we are in total agreement, and I believe that the Trolls are contemplating just that very thing

If I can be of any help to the Trolls on this, let me know.

Quote:
1. WotC loses many of their IP rights.

I can see this.

Quote:
2. They have no creative control over material produced under the licenses.

Not entirely true. Licensed products have to go through WotC for review. If WotC says something is nixed, it's gone.

Quote:
3. They receive no royalties from products produced and sold under the licenses.

True, though in cases like Dragonlance, you have to buy the main book from WotC so you have the basics of the setting. Not so with Dragon and Dungeon, but they point back to the core books anyway.

Quote:
5. Products produced under the licenses do not further strengthen name recogtnition of the D&D mark, as it does not appear on said products, while the D20 mark is not a valuable property, merely a minor adjucnt to the D&D one as well as a competing one for income from consumers of the D&D brand products.

I mostly agree, though I will say that in the case of Dragonlance, the gaming license strengthened the novel line, IMO. TSR/WotC had botched DL gaming. Sov. Press/MWP brought it back. Now this didn't impact the D&D brand so much, but it helped a WotC property.

Quote:
To me it seems clear that WotC is not now a hobby game publisher, but rather an adjunct of a mass market toy and game manufacturer.

Yeah, more's the pity.

Col_Pladoh wrote:
Ot should be obvious from the number of non-D20 RPGs that have converted to a D20-like system using the OGL, that done in (generally vain) hopes of cashing in on the D&D game's audience.

L5R tried going to d20 to bring in a higher audience, but it just didn't pan out. They went back to their older system. (Personally, I liked both versions.)

Gary, thanks for your time explaining your position on all of this. Certainly, it gives me another point of view to consider.
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus

dcs · Post by **dcs** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:43 pm

Dragonhelm wrote:
Not entirely true. Licensed products have to go through WotC for review. If WotC says something is nixed, it's gone.

The original D20 STL didn't specify any review process or attach any conditions. WOTC changed it because of the Book of Erotic Fantasy. I think they now reserve the right to "pull" the license.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

Dragonhelm · Post by **Dragonhelm** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:46 pm

dcs wrote:
The original D20 STL didn't specify any review process or attach any conditions. WOTC changed it because of the Book of Erotic Fantasy. I think they now reserve the right to "pull" the license.

I should clarify. I was thinking of directly licensed products, not OGL stuff.

Ignore me, bad week....
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:19 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
They do that when your posts are 'advertizing' another game. So yes, they dont want competition on their boards. ^_~`

Wow. Insecure much?

Sheesh. I didn't even advertise anything in the particular post I'm grumbling is missing. I just pointed out that there are several companies that do better at D&D than they do. I didn't name anybody in the post.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:18 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Wow. Insecure much?

Sheesh. I didn't even advertise anything in the particular post I'm grumbling is missing. I just pointed out that there are several companies that do better at D&D than they do. I didn't name anybody in the post.

That is actually the biggest reason I quit going to the WOTC boards. I have had several posts deleted simply because I mentioned Necromancer Games, TLG, Goodman, or Green Ronin.

Read their rules. They tell you not to "advertise" anyone else. Then they treat just mentioning this or that adventure/product by so and so company as an ad.

Pathetic. Fortunately I didn't "love" 3E to begin with. WOTC's attitude about competitors was just another nail in their coffin as far as I was concerned.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:40 pm

Treebore wrote:
That is actually the biggest reason I quit going to the WOTC boards. I have had several posts deleted simply because I mentioned Necromancer Games, TLG, Goodman, or Green Ronin.

Read their rules. They tell you not to "advertise" anyone else. Then they treat just mentioning this or that adventure/product by so and so company as an ad.

Pathetic. Fortunately I didn't "love" 3E to begin with. WOTC's attitude about competitors was just another nail in their coffin as far as I was concerned.

That's crazy. Completely crazy.

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:35 pm

dcs wrote:
Spells! D&D has lots of them and, in my opinion, the hardest part of designing a new fantasy game is spells.

If one is going for a different system and different genre, then there's probably no reason to use the OGL.

Bah!
I managed hundreds of new and interesting spells for bnoth the Mythus and LA game systems without any great effort, and none of them operate in the same way D&D spells do.

Gary

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:37 pm

serleran wrote:
Magic in general... and monsters. Those monsters are rather iconic, in many ways. You know, goblins, orcs, kobolds, ogres, trolls... of course, one can take a more folklorish way, but the average gamer is gonna want the D&D version, since that's the staple. Even a few changes can have serious negative reaction.

Again...

The monsters created for the two RPGs cited above are not similar to D&D monsters, and there has been a high rate of acceptance, interest in the diffenent approaches presented.

Cheers,

Gary

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:39 pm

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
Oh, I see what you're getting at. I thought you meant a limiting problem with the terms of the OGL, itself, rather than how people have chosen to use it. I'd call that a problem with judgment, rather than a problem with the OGL..

What i am getting at is that is was a gross error on the part of WotC to issue the OGL, and its use by other publishers has harmed the overall, not the new FRPG, market.

Cheers,

Gary

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:43 pm

Yeah, but LA is not a D&D-like derivative (in that you, I believe, purposefully designed it to be "different",) either... so its rather a moot comparison. There are some instances of likeness (fantasy demands it), but that is all. Besides, I said "can," not "will."

You have an advantage, Gary... many people will simply be interested in whatever it is because it has your name attached. Heck, I wanted to look at LA to see how it was different than Mythus/DJ and AD&D, so you already had a one-up on that basis alone. Not quite the same thing for Joe Bub the design schmoe.

Anyway, I was mostly pointing out that the average game (of which LA is not,) will typically follow the same-old stuff. The OGL is perfect for the "lazy-man approach."

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:47 pm

Dragonhelm wrote:
Quote:
2. They have no creative control over material produced under the licenses.

Quote:
Not entirely true. Licensed products have to go through WotC for review. If WotC says something is nixed, it's gone.

This is absolutely untrue in regards the OGL, If the publisher follows its terms and conditions, WotC has nothing at all to say about the content.

Quote:
3. They receive no royalties from products produced and sold under the licenses.

Quote:
True, though in cases like Dragonlance, you have to buy the main book from WotC so you have the basics of the setting. Not so with Dragon and Dungeon, but they point back to the core books anyway.

Dragonlance is very much an inferior mark to D&D. One does not need to use it for use of either the D20 or OGL license, so there is no merit to what is stated in regards to it. This applies to your comments regarding my point 5. as well.

Quote:
To me it seems clear that WotC is not now a hobby game publisher, but rather an adjunct of a mass market toy and game manufacturer.

Quote:
Yeah, more's the pity.

Quite so.

Quote:
Gary, thanks for your time explaining your position on all of this. Certainly, it gives me another point of view to consider.

My pleasure, even if I was not eager to spend the time dealing with the matter
Cheers,

Gary

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:51 pm

serleran wrote:
Yeah, but LA is not a D&D-like derivative (in that you, I believe, purposefully designed it to be "different",) either... so its rather a moot comparison. There are some instances of likeness (fantasy demands it), but that is all. Besides, I said "can," not "will." You have an advantage, Gary... many people will simply be interested in whatever it is because it has your name attached. Heck, I wanted to look at LA to see how it was different than Mythus/DJ and AD&D, so you already had a one-up on that basis alone. Not quite the same thing for Joe Bub the design schmoe.

Anyway, I was mostly pointing out that the average game (of which LA is not,) will typically follow the same-old stuff. The OGL is perfect for the "lazy-man approach."

Okay, point taken.

Still, games such as MA, Paranois, etc,. show that one not imitate D&D to be worthwhile.

Cheers,

Gary

angelius · Post by **angelius** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:12 am

I just hope this is a catalyst for change in the RPG industry. We need some new talented people to get creative, start their own company and overthrow the d20 tyrant! (Oh wait, that could be TLG!)
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:36 pm

serleran wrote:
It might sound odd, but I hope 4e goes the way of the wargame, because then, it will lose most of its association with a roleplaying game, allowing true RPGs to emerge as the "best of the niche" and D&D will be forced to compete with the, probably, best-known one current: Warhammer, and that will be a difficult uphill struggle. Alternatively, D&D could just abandon tables completely and become laptop happy; they do have a strong tradition of video/console games. I do think a miniature-centric D&D game (more so than the current version) is the only hope to remove the stigmatization associated with our hobby. It just has to stay that way.

I guess there will always be the problem that the name D&D is associated to something which is only a travesty of what the game was by Gary's definition. Whether 3rd, 4th or whatever edition, only a return to the roots (like C&C does) could make the D&D name worth of its past. I said it many times, to me the natural heir of (A)D&D is Castles & Crusades.

Cheers,

Antonio

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:12 pm

angelius wrote:
I just hope this is a catalyst for change in the RPG industry. We need some new talented people to get creative, start their own company and overthrow the d20 tyrant! (Oh wait, that could be TLG!)

TLG and a handful of others as wekk
BTW, I have a T-shirt with that dwarf commenting on how he disposed of his reward...

Cheers,

Gary

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:16 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
I guess there will always be the problem that the name D&D is associated to something which is only a travesty of what the game was by Gary's definition. Whether 3rd, 4th or whatever edition, only a return to the roots (like C&C does) could make the D&D name worth of its past. I said it many times, to me the natural heir of (A)D&D is Castles & Crusades.

Cheers,

Antonio

Let us hope that a million or more RPG buffs have exactly the same sentiment. That sort of audience will guarantee all manner of support for the system, a magazine included.

Of course, I would much prefer that the LA game system, including its coming genre expansions, achieved that success
Cheerio,

Gary

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:23 pm

Col_Pladoh wrote:
Let us hope that a million or more RPG buffs have exactly the same sentiment. That sort of audience will guarantee all manner of support for the system, a magazine included.

Of course, I would much prefer that the LA game system, including its coming genre expansions, achieved that success
Cheerio,

Gary

Either or both works for me. I'm all for having two types of systems catering to their own audience. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:19 pm

Well, LA boxed set is exactly next my C&C and CZ books