WOTC has their DLCS. Do you think Sov Press should just produce their own version? I don't see why they couldn't do it legally, it shouldn't be any different than releasing HOotS or the WotL hardcovers. Would a new DLCS, less WoS-centric, more detailed (with smaller print and borders), and mind blowing art be a beneficial shot in the arm for the setting? I know I'd buy it.
Fan desire created the plans for a revised WotL adventure trilogy, maybe we should try for a new DLCS. FR and Eberron have set the standard, I'd like our core sourcebook to meet or exceed those standards.
WOTC has their DLCS. Do you think Sov Press should just produce their own version? I don't see why they couldn't do it legally,
It would need to be approved by WoTC. I doubt they'd approve something so directly competitive with one of their products.
It would need to be approved by WoTC. I doubt they'd approve something so directly competitive with one of their products.
Well I wouldn't expect Sovereign Press to call it "Dragonlance Campaign Setting 2.0" (I'd lean toward "Dragonlance Adventures" as a nod toward the original HC) but I see your point. Is WOTC's DLCS still in print? Probably, but I wonder if Sovereign can still work something in of their own that doesn't step too hard on WOTC's toes. It looks like the era sourcebooks are great, but they aren't complete setting books in and of themselves. According to fan response, many want a better "one stop shopping" book, didn't feel they got it with the DLCS, and therefore haven't given DL in its current incarnation a chance.
Well I wouldn't expect Sovereign Press to call it "Dragonlance Campaign Setting 2.0" (I'd lean toward "Dragonlance Adventures" as a nod toward the original HC)
Some sort of "Essential Dragonlance" sourcebook would be nice. I agree the DLCS is not SP's nor WOTC's best work (it does the job well enough for me but the people who don't like it have a point), but I wouldn't hold my breath. Personally I wonder if it would bring back more fans than it would alienate (the ones who'd say "You mean I have to buy it again?!!").
Well I wouldn't expect Sovereign Press to call it "Dragonlance Campaign Setting 2.0" (I'd lean toward "Dragonlance Adventures" as a nod toward the original HC) but I see your point.
Prior to when Sovereign Press got the DL license, the Nexus' own rules document was going to do much the same with "Dragonlance Adventures 3rd Edition", or "DLA3e" for short. Ah, those were the days.
Really, I think SP should do a "Dragonlance Companion" - a book compiling the new base classes, feats, etc. thus far and then having sections on the changes to the world since the DLCS' printing both in terms of geography and history. Add in some new stuff as well, and voila.
1st- that is the most playable era (sorry anti-5th Age brothers, but it's true), in other words, that era is the most compatible with D&D 3.5
2nd- many people wanted a solution for the DL continuity in order to recover lost fans (let's face it, not everyone liked SAGA); and these fans would need an update of krynn if didn't follow the novels.
3rd- they simply can't cover everythig, that's why SP is publishing books focused on specific times.
Suporting Dragonhelm's idea a companion book, or player's guide would be nice.
We really do need a different core rulebook. Every chapter of rules needed fixing of some sort (including the two main prestige classes, the knights of Solamnia and the Wizards of High Sorcery) and the geography section is woefully inadequate for a DM to get a sense of the full scope of the campaign setting.
Of course, it might be better to divide the DLCS book into two different ones. Namely a rulebook (a dragonlance companion as Dragonhelm said) and an Atlas.
After all, it might be a few years before things settle down again. Every author seems to want to write a world shaking event lately.
Is WOTC's DLCS still in print?
Its a good thing I own one, and was able to pick up three more used copies for the players in my game (requirement was they read the book, since the Eberron DM made that his requirement, so I bought them all a present). As it stands, I tried to by a new one recently, and was dissapointed when the retailer told me their distributer stopped carrying the book altogether. Most stores no longer carry it, and WoTC seems to be cutting it off their production list.
To make a long story short, I would kill to see the book revised. As wonderful as it is to have the world in my hands, the book was sloppy and hastily put together. What content there was seemed to run together and yet still contradict, and the art. . . Well, lets not talk about it so we don't make a mess on the floor from throwing up. Maybe to buy the exclusive rights would be out of the question, I am sure WoTC would ask some ungodly high price for them so as to prevent Sovereign Press from taking away the campaign. I think they would look at it as a threat to the Novels still in publication.
If we were so luck as to recieve a new book, I have no problem with it still being in the era that the DLCS was, that was not the problem. The area of improvment would be to have the book met the standard set by the Eberron book, and subsequent supliments after the EBCS. For example, the Five Nations book and Explorers Handbook, both great books that add immensely to the game, and contain almost no PrC's, monsters, magic spells, or items. I was shocked, here was a WoTC book that did not contain at least 40 pages of things I will never use, and the PrC's contained in the Explorers Handbook should set a new precidence for PrC's in the future (6 pages alone for the Windrider PrC?!)
I would love to see six to ten page spreads dedicated to the KoS and KoN, along with the ToHS and all things Divine. I know I have beaten this horse to death in the past, but I must say it one last time, I love the DLCS for it brings Dragonlance back to my table, but it NEEDS revision to compare to the books out there and to KEEP Dragonlance on the table.
I just wanted to mention, that the amount of work needed to compile the DLCS was a tremendous one. It may appear partly hastily or sloppy put together, but I think one has to grant the immense material ressources from AD&D 1st, 2nd, SAGA and the novels which were often quite contradictory...
So, the DLCS was the pioneer work done to dig deeper into consistent and new material we've seen lately by SovPress.
Just to save the honour of the DLCS ;)
But now, with the pioneering over, a fundamental sourcebook to the setting would be greatly appreciated
Regards
M's CLaw
Since WotC owns the rights to the core DL rulebook, somehow I don't think they'd allow what would essentially be "a rose by any other name".
Technically, WotC owned the entire Dragonlance brand and IP. Sovereign Press just have the license (which is a legal way of granting permission) to publish DL supplements. Until both parties agree to a different licensing agreement where Sovereign Press can publish the entire DL line including a new edition of the DLCS, I have no objection to the status quo. Besides, products printed and released from Sovereign Press have been ... well, let's say my wallet literally groan at the price tags. I'm not saying I won't buy their products, I just don't have the sufficient fund to purchase them on their release date.
I have already expressed that the DLCS could have been better like providing the mariner class in that book instead of the Age of Mortal. But if the companion book would include that class then I would be relieved since I'm a 4th Age fan.
"Arthaus Publishing and Wizards of the Coast have announced that they have reached an agreement for the reversion of rights to the RAVENLOFT and GAMMA WORLD campaign settings. WotC has agreed to allow White Wolf (Arthaus' umbrella company) to sell back stock until June 2006. This reversion means that the RAVENLOFT supplement Van Richten’s Guide to the Mists will not see print. Sword & Sorcery Studios will release the unproofed manuscript as a free PDF in September."
Anyone have any further insight on this?
Simon Collins
I'm sure this is between WotC and Arthaus, rather than a general thing, but I was a bit worried by the following news on EN World on Monday last:
"Arthaus Publishing and Wizards of the Coast have announced that they have reached an agreement for the reversion of rights to the RAVENLOFT and GAMMA WORLD campaign settings. WotC has agreed to allow White Wolf (Arthaus' umbrella company) to sell back stock until June 2006. This reversion means that the RAVENLOFT supplement Van Richten’s Guide to the Mists will not see print. Sword & Sorcery Studios will release the unproofed manuscript as a free PDF in September."
Anyone have any further insight on this?
Simon Collins
Other than learning to hate White Wolf more?
I mean seriously, White Wolf has some issues with trying to control anything having to do with Gothic horror these days. First was the lawsuit they tried to levy against the movie "Underworld", now they seek to dictate to WotC and Sword & Sorcery what they can print. Sounds like White Wolf is trying to set up a monopoly on the gothic horror genre to me. I don't recall the makers of Shadowrun trying to sue the movie producers of "Johnny Mnemonic". Well, they've (White Wolf) guaranteed they won't get any of my money. Especially since I was just starting to get into Ravenloft too...Here's to hoping White Wolf doesn't sniff around the vampire-esque creatures in the Dark Disciple trilogy, or they may try to bully WotC again, and go after SP. Oh yeah, I hate White Wolf. :P
Other than learning to hate White Wolf more?
Here's to hoping White Wolf doesn't sniff around the vampire-esque creatures in the Dark Disciple trilogy, or they may try to bully WotC again, and go after SP. Oh yeah, I hate White Wolf. :P
For the record, the reason WW was all in an up roar over Underworld was because the script was very close to a story in one of their World of Darkness novels not because it simply had vampires vs werewolves.
Sounds like White Wolf is trying to set up a monopoly on the gothic horror genre to me.
I interpreted the news release as WotC pulling the rights for Ravenloft back off Arthaus, for what I presumed was some sort of abuse of their agreement. At least, that's how I interpreted the phrase 'reversion of rights'. I was concerned that perhaps WotC might pull DL from SP if if the RL thing wasn't an agreement abuse issue but a more general new policy. Anyone in the know care to elucidate?
Simon Collins
I interpreted the news release as WotC pulling the rights for Ravenloft back off Arthaus, for what I presumed was some sort of abuse of their agreement. At least, that's how I interpreted the phrase 'reversion of rights'. I was concerned that perhaps WotC might pull DL from SP if if the RL thing wasn't an agreement abuse issue but a more general new policy. Anyone in the know care to elucidate?
Simon Collins
Any number of things can be at work here. It could be that Arthaus found WotC difficult to work with or that they felt the license was no longer profitable. Perhaps WotC didn't like the way the property was being handled.
More than likely, it was a mutual decision. I'm taking a guess here, but I believe their license would have been up for renewal about now anyway. They probably decided not to renew.
This is all speculation on my part. To my knowledge, this is a localized incident that shouldn't affect SP at all.
Anyone have any further insight on this?
I doubt it has any effect on Sovereign Press's license.
For the record, the reason WW was all in an up roar over Underworld was because the script was very close to a story in one of their World of Darkness novels not because it simply had vampires vs werewolves.
But I was under the impression that it was an interpretation that was taken a bit far (I vaguely remember the point by point argument that went into the original lawsuit, but admittedly some of the details have gotten 'fuzzy' over time. :P)
I was under the impression it was a matter of someone drawing parallels between White Wolf's gaming genre and the movie itself. Along the lines of people trying to draw parallels between the movie X-Men 2 and Star Trek 2 The Wrath of Kahn (and calling Bryan Singer a hack as a result)- the only difference between the two was there wasn't a lawsuit involved, but rather fans of the 2 movies making comparisons.
I've also heard grumblings that White Wolf would have gone after Anne Rice if it weren't for the fact that her works predate White Wolf's
I was under the impression it was a matter of someone drawing parallels between White Wolf's gaming genre and the movie itself. Along the lines of people trying to draw parallels between the movie X-Men 2 and Star Trek 2 The Wrath of Kahn (and calling Bryan Singer a hack as a result)- the only difference between the two was there wasn't a lawsuit involved, but rather fans of the 2 movies making comparisons.
Never heard about the X-Men 2/Star Trek 2 parallels. I can see some if I try real hard to form some :P
Is there any reason why this problems couldnt be solved by a pdf file?
I guess that could work, provided it was new material being covered. If it was reusing or re-contextualizing material from the DLCS, then they might run into the risk of cutting into any profits that could potentially be lost in sales of the DLCS (since people would be able to get the same material from a free pdf, without having to buy the current DLCS)
Never heard about the X-Men 2/Star Trek 2 parallels. I can see some if I try real hard to form some :P
Yup, they were comparing the sacrifice of a pivotal character to 'save the ship', reflecting on the loss of that compatriot onboard said ship, and even the speeches given in the beginning and end of the movies and their cyclical meaning were compared as well. I suppose you can make comparisons like this with LOTS of movies, I just remember this one floating around online a few months to a year ago or so.
So if I understand correctly, WOTC is taking back Ravenloft?
Looks that way. Also looks like Ravenloft will join it's cousin gaming campaigns (like 'Dark Sun', 'Spelljammers', 'Birthright', 'Al Qadim', 'Greyhawk' etc) and be relegated to musty storage somewhere to be forgotten until some later date.
Strange, I was looking at the copyright info on the inside cover of a Ravenloft product, and from the wording of the copyright info, it looked like Arthaus is an independent company? And Sword and Sorcery belongs to White Wolf?
ArtHaus is White Wolf's subsidiary company that they started up themselves. Originally, ArtHaus was to publish the Wraith line that White Wolf no longer consider as one of the popular Storyteller products. The company later became the developer of Ravenloft licensed product line. Sword & Sorcery Studio is a game design studio that joined with White Wolf primarily for their publishinghouse and distribution network (i.e., print books and ship them to stores).
So if I understand correctly, WOTC is taking back Ravenloft?
Technically, White Wolf is returning both GW and RL licenses. I think they're shifting away from doing d20 licensing with the exception of Sword & Sorcery Studio designed products.
ArtHaus is White Wolf's subsidiary company that they started up themselves. Originally, ArtHaus was to publish the Wraith line that White Wolf no longer consider as one of the popular Storyteller products. The company later became the developer of Ravenloft licensed product line.
And, IIRC, they also have rights to publish supplements for the excellent Pendragon RPG, though nothing has been released yet, except pdf versions of previous stuff on DriveThru. There's some pretty cool stuff in there to steal for DL, considering the focus on knights and chivalry, etc.
Simon Collins
How likely is it to see a reprint or revision of the DLCS as it is?
To be brutally honest, I don't want to see revision of DLCS anytime soon. Bad enough I had to update my core rulebooks from 3.0e which I had for just three years. Just three years. Bad business and marketing decision by WotC.
I have noticed that a large number of stores have simply stopped carrying the DL line, and those that do try to keep it in stock are having difficulties because the books are rapidly reaching an out of print status. Is there something more to be concerned with, or should we blissfully (and blindly) look forward to a release of the DLCS 2.0 (that I know will never happen)?
The FLGS's distributors should be aware of Sovereign Press's products. If the DLCS is running out and the distributors put in orders for more to WotC, then they should order up another printing run. (Second Printing?)
The license that they had with Ravenloft was quite different from the one that Sov Press have with WotC for Dragonlance. For one thing the RLCS wasn't published by WotC.
But on the inside cover of the RLCS is the WotC logo, big 'n bold. I thought the RLCS was handled the same as the DLCS, WotC was involved in the first book, then turned over control to the licensee while WotC maintains ultimate ownership of the campaign worlds (and any 'final say' in editing, content, etc)?
I thought the RLCS was handled the same as the DLCS, WotC was involved in the first book, then turned over control to the licensee while WotC maintains ultimate ownership of the campaign worlds (and any 'final say' in editing, content, etc)?
RE: Ravenloft
WotC have final say and approval of RL material before allowing White Wolf to print it.
RE: Dragonlance
Not only does WotC have final say, it was agreed by both parties in the licensing agreement that WotC will publish the main campaign setting book (content designed by Sovereign Press), while Sovereign Press will supportthe book and the line with future supplements.
IOW, not all licensing agreements are the same.
RE: Ravenloft
WotC have final say and approval of RL material before allowing White Wolf to print it.
RE: Dragonlance
Not only does WotC have final say, it was agreed by both parties in the licensing agreement that WotC will publish the main campaign setting book (content designed by Sovereign Press), while Sovereign Press will supportthe book and the line with future supplements.
IOW, not all licensing agreements are the same.
This is understood, so please don't talk down to me, unless you are trying to start a flame war. Unless I misread your reponse as being trite, then no harm no foul. WotC owns both campaign worlds, so they have the final say in each campaign world. It's their intellectual property, so I would expect they would maintain the final say in products for those properties.
My statement was in BOTH the DLCS and RLCS, on the inside cover, the WotC logo features VERY prominently, suggesting that they had a large part to play in the production of BOTH of the campaign sourcebooks (if they didn't write it themselves). In each supplement that followed for each campaign, the WotC logo did not appear (at least not as prominently) but the copyright info still denoted that the property belongs to WotC. This is indicative that after the CS was produced, the licensee companies were given the right to publish any material that followed, with the caveat that WotC maintains the right to approve or disapprove the final content and publication of any material that has the Dragonlance or Ravenloft name. In this regard, the licenses are very similar. I never implied that the licenses were the same though...
There really has been an evolution on how the licenses were handled. The DL license was different than prior licenses (RL and OA) based on prior experiences. WotC modified the license to work most favorably for them.
As for the logo, you should notice the WotC "official licensed product" logo on all the DL products.
I don't think REG was trying to be trite. Just helpful.
There really has been an evolution on how the licenses were handled. The DL license was different than prior licenses (RL and OA) based on prior experiences. WotC modified the license to work most favorably for them.
As for the logo, you should notice the WotC "official licensed product" logo on all the DL products.
Gotcha, thanks DH. REG, if you were trying to be helpful, thanks, its just sometimes the tone/intent of a message can easily be misread, particulary when a message is written vs spoken. :P
I thought about this, and I guess there's something I'm not quite getting (or getting across), so if the following question is answered, then that might solve my bit of consternation.
WotC produced the DLCS with content provided by SP. Did WotC produce the RLCS with content provided by White Wolf? (keep in mind, I'm referring to just the campaign sourcebooks in this question, NOTHING ELSE, not the licenses, not other books, not industry insight, or anything else, just the CS books)
WotC produced the DLCS with content provided by SP. Did WotC produce the RLCS with content provided by White Wolf? (keep in mind, I'm referring to just the campaign sourcebooks in this question, NOTHING ELSE, not the licenses, not other books, not industry insight, or anything else, just the CS books)
RLCS was not done by WotC.
I have a feeling that WotC figured out that they could have earned a nice profit off of the initial sourcebook, ergo why licenses are handled slightly differently now. That makes good business sense. After all, how many times does a person buy only the core sourcebook for a setting and nothing more?
Gotcha, thanks DH. REG, if you were trying to be helpful, thanks, its just sometimes the tone/intent of a message can easily be misread, particulary when a message is written vs spoken. :P
I don't intend my response to you as having any tone other than clarification. As Dragonhelm stated, WotC is going to deal with new license differently based on lesson learned with previous licensing deals, mainly in their favor.