Quit patting yourselves on the back in the office it was the fans that brought it back not Wizards. If it was up to them it would be dead and buried.
:sad:
So as a repeat....Don't pat yourselves on the back Wotc sellouts.
Planescape is only back because the fans took it into their own hands...If it was up to wotc there would not be another Planescape....I guess it was too hard for them to understand.
I applaude the folks at planewalker and codi for resurrecting planescape. But will never give an ounce of respect to the company that tried to kill it!!!!
Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes
Funny how my first reply to this just disappeared.....
So as a repeat....Don't pat yourselves on the back Wotc sellouts.
Planescape is only back because the fans took it into their own hands...If it was up to wotc there would not be another Planescape....I guess it was too hard for them to understand.
I applaude the folks at planewalker and codi for resurrecting planescape. But will never give an ounce of respect to the company that tried to kill it!!!!
Wow. That's just... wow....
Some opinionated responses above. While its good to know people still have feelings for the setting, I feel I should remind everyone that Wizards of the Coast has been *EXTREMELY* generous in allowing us to continue working on what is their property by all rights. Not only are we allowed to continue the Planescape line but we've thus far been given permission to use both 2E and 3E material in the best interest of the product. Basically WotC has given us a legal execption, without which PS3E would be in a poor state indeed.
So despite our disagreements, let's all be thankful for what we have
Originally posted by A2Z
Wow. That's just... wow....
Especially since it's back!
Personally, I bear no ill will toward WotC. I love what they've done w/ d20 / DnD. Do I wish that they offered a Planescape Setting, along with all the other settings? You bet! Can I appreciate why they didn't? As it's associated with money and profits - sure. Could WotC have made PS 3.5 happen? I believe that they could have. They are, afterall, excellent at marketing. I'm mean, let's be real - have you tallied up how much money you've spent on 3.0 stuff? And now with 3.5, how many are going to upgrade? So, if Planescape came out - I'd have no worries that they'd turn a profit.
But they aren't and now we get it for free. No biggie. Would it be nice to have a bound copy with beautiful colored pages? OF COURSE. Will the pdf be in color? Let's hope so. Anyone near a book binder? If you live in a college town, I'd put money on it! (Afterall, dissertations must be bound!) So, it ain't the end of the world.
Is there still the possibility that WotC might sell the production rights to a 3rd party publisher, like AEG, once the creative juices out here are finished? It's always possible. Happened w/ Ravenloft. Likewise, who knows, WotC might even see value, once it sees the finished product, of publishing it itself.
Never say never.
. . . but then again, I just did!
Originally posted by Saurstalk
Is there still the possibility that WotC might sell the production rights to a 3rd party publisher, like AEG, once the creative juices out here are finished? It's always possible. Happened w/ Ravenloft. Likewise, who knows, WotC might even see value, once it sees the finished product, of publishing it itself.
First off, I just want to say that I don't hold WotC's decision against them. I see the lack of their support for PS as it is as sad, but not something that you blame someone over; I saw it as sad more in the vein of how all good things must come to an end. The fact that we have the wonderful PS3E guys is, to me, a real blessing.
That said, we're unlikely to see a new third-party PS3E from some other d20 company due to WotC's current policy on revisiting old campaign settings. I got this from a combination of what we saw with the RL and DL lines, and an interview with Jim Butler that I read somewhere (my kingdom for seeing that interview again!), so bear with me. It goes like this:
Shortly after licensing RL to Sword & Sorcery Studios (who relegated it to their subsidiary, Arthaus) and the release of the Ravenloft 3E book, WotC realized/decided that they could sweeten the deal for themselves where republishing old worlds was concerned...
When a campaign line is printed, the main book (the "campaign setting" book) is always the most popular one; subsequent products require you to have the main book, so only people already sold on the line will buy those, but anyone can pick up the main book itself to see if they like the world or not - if they do, they buy more, and if not, they still bought the main book. Follow so far?
Publishers are the ones who get the most back from the books they put out, in terms of monetary profit. Writers are either company workers, meaning they get paychecks and aren't paid directly for the books they write, or they are freelancers, in which case they either get a flat fee for what they write, or a small (single-digit) percentage of income based on the books sold (and rarely, they get both a flat fee and a percentage). So, publishers stand to gain the most if a book is a popular seller.
After Ravenloft 3E, WotC changed their policy towards licensing old worlds. They laid down the caveat that if a third-party wanted to start a new 3E line of products for a discontinued campaign that WotC owned, they (WotC) demanded to be the ones to publish the main book. Given that this was only for publishing the main book, not actually writing it, it means that the third-party people would have to do most of the work (writing it; which is the hardest part) for negligable profits. This is what killed off what was a healthy third-party interest in new printed versions of Dark Sun and Planescape (I asked around GenCon 2001 about this, and such interest was definately there).
So far, Sovereign Press is the only one who has decided to take the financial hit and go ahead with Dragonlance 3E. You can see there that what I said is true, as the people who have written that book are all Sovereign Press employees, but its WotC publishing it, and all the support books are published by Sovereign.
While, as I said, I hold no animosity to WotC for discontinuing Planescape, I find this business practice sleazy; it is them demanding the lion's share of the profits for a disproportionately small amount of work, and it has scared off smaller companies from giving a true rebirth to many of the old campaigns. It makes me all the more grateful for the PS3E team we have here, because otherwise we would truly have nothing...
Planescape would have soared under wotc's direction. I am happy to see ps3e even as a pdf if need be....
I feel though that some of the settings are an endangered species. I have not heard of a ressurection of Dark sun yet nor of other settings, Although there is a birthright revision on one of the fansites!!!
Whatever happenss it has been proven that it will be the fans that will reclaim these worlds. It will be the fans that will rebuild revise and release them.....
And I just dare wotc to stop that!!!
They've actually got QUITE a bit converted, and they are looking to release some kind of core d20 document soon. They are still working on some of the bugs though (like the magic system w/ defilers and preservers, etc.).
Yep, I blur the line between Fiction and Non Fiction as it makes things more "Believable" in terms of RPG's. I use the term "Believable" instead of "Realistic" BTW...;)
I think that it also a neat way for "Heroes" in the game to honor and to be inspired by the RL Heroes...
Originally posted by Cernunnos
No resurrection of Dark Sun? Then what have then people over at www.athas.org been doing the past 2 or 3 years?
They've actually got QUITE a bit converted, and they are looking to release some kind of core d20 document soon. They are still working on some of the bugs though (like the magic system w/ defilers and preservers, etc.).
If you read that closer I said I had not HEARD of a ressurection of the setting, not that it wasn't happening. I am glad that the people there are doing it.
But thank you for the info.
Alzrius, sadly you are right. I hate seeing these old worlds shot down. I also agree that this is a sleazy business practice on their part.
Hmmm . . . sleazy.
So, not taking costly business risks when your company is already working under tight budgets, strict and perhaps at times unreasonable deadlines, and other company issues is no longer considered intelligent business practices that keep your company from folding, but sleazy . . .
The decision to not follow up with the various other worlds (or dead worlds) settings was in fact due in part to those settings not selling very well. Advertising was not the issue as they were plugged just as much as any other setting except for Forgotten Realms. Do you think the designers and people who worked for so long on these projects didn't share similar feelings about their long toil comming up short? I've spoken with some of the designers of various products who were shocked when all the effort put into a quality product and all the advertising and support given to it still didn't earn it the kind of recognition amongst the gaming community.
Taking Planescape and my current region of residence as an example, I know tons of people who loved Planescape and thought the setting was sheer perfection, in fact, the amount of praise I have heard about the setting surprised me. When asking the vast majority of these people how often they gamed in the Planescape setting and the reply was always "Once or twice; a few times maybe; or even not at all." Also when asking people what products they owned (mostly to complete my own collection after some of the material became harder to find) and few people owned more than the core box. These same people though had extensive collections of Forgotten Realms material though and a smattering of Ravenloft and Dragonlance. But asking the same questions of Dark Sun, Birthright, or even Mystara and I generally got the same responses (most people I knew did not even know what Mystara was).
Also, I have no idea where you see anyone from WOTC 'patting themselves on the back' about Planescape, or where you get the idea that they are, as you so eloquently put it, 'trying to kill it'.
They don't produce material for it, but the surely could have kept the liscense under a more strict lock and key like most any other rational company would have, just in case. Instead, they allowed a group of people dedicated to the setting partial liscensing to continue the setting. Most any other kind of rational publishing company would surely scoff at this. If they were trying to 'kill' the setting as you say, then you wouldn't be posting didly squat on their own message boards about a setting that they no longer fully support. If they were 'trying' to kill the setting, there would only be a Forgotten Realms section to post under and that's it. There also wouldn't be a team of ndependant developers for PS3e. Its WOTC's liscence after all and by having these 'Dead Worlds' developed, they are in fact taking a minor fanancial loss since they will be selling less of their products to these people.
Emotionalism is fine and well. I have to admit that when some of these settings got cut, I was more than upset about it. I was infuriated in fact. Especially about Planescape and Dark Sun, which were the two settings that I had skipped rent payments for (okay, only one rent payment, but I did have my phone shut off over a slew of Dark Sun adventures). Eventually I realized though that I was in fact, part of the unfortunate minority amongst gamers. I will continue to remain a minority though, and thankfully, these settings are not being 'killed'.
Show the independant developement teams some support. Post ideas, critique the work that they are doing (in a constructive manner). Ensure that these settings don't fade away (especially those that have even smaller fan bases like Mystara and Birthright). Draw in new people from other areas across the net. Get people involved. Granted, at the moment no "Dead World' setting has a fully fleshed out core rules set, yet, but Planescape and Darksun are both very close. Start plugging your favorite setting instead of just pithing and moaning.
As for a constructive critique of your post:
I have never before seen, nor possibly ever agin see, such a long winded, intellegently written......brownnose of wotc....
Plunderer: From the first day you joined this message board, it seems like you've bad-mouthed WotC in just about every post. I'm not suggesting that you have to be a WotC fanboy to partake in this forum, but it's becoming tiresome. Okay, so you don't like the direction they're going with 3e; we get the message. Now can you give it a rest?
Wyvern
Originally posted by Wyvern76
Mach2.5: If you paid closer attention to the context, you would see that the "sleazy" business practice that was being referred to was WotC's insistence on publishing books they didn't write so they could reap most of the profits while doing hardly any of the work. You may or may not think it's within their rights to do so, but it has nothing to do with their decision not to republish discontinued settings, so you just wasted your proverbial breath.
I'm glad someone else caught this. I was a bit worried that what I actually meant would be lost in there.
The specific thing I was referring to as sleazy is, as Wyvern correctly noted, the fact that WotC is taking the bulk of the profits for the lesser amount of work.
There are other practices in there that I feel are rather sleazy in the sense that WotC is using the upper hand they have in negotiations to force a third-part publisher to agree to various stipulations in how they proceed with the licensed property even after licensing it. Jamie Chambers of Sovereign Press expounded on this over at EN World:
Originally posted by vrykyl
Our license with WotC gives us guidelines about the numbers and types of sourcebooks we can publish in a given year. For example, we could not publish multiple "big concept" books in the same year (such as AGE OF MORTALS and WAR OF THE LANCE), nor could we publish six adventures even if we wanted to. We have to find a balance between major sourcebooks, subject-specific sourcebooks, accessories, adventures, etc. From there we plan out our schedule.
While I understand that it is WotC perogative to make money, and that these old campaigns are their intellectual property, but this sort of thing seems to have no particular practicle value - especially since further books, in this case, aren't even published by them (WotC). It's reasons like this why other d20 companies are very hesitant now to publish the old campaigns.
The players buying thier stuff. Happy players=sales
players who feel like they have been steppedon=lost business
Each way it takes us to make or break they company. as soon as they stop caring about their fans well they loose sales. Hmmm so suddenly it's not as easy as they are just a business.
To make money THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PLEASE US!!!!
Firstly, I didn't flame you. I disagreed and presented valid statements and valid opinions (i.e. opinions supported by fact, not merely opinions). If you want to start a pi**ing contest, then find another kindergardner to play with.
Yes, players buy their stuff. We are all fully away of this. Yes, happy players equals more sales, we are all fully aware of this as well. But when faced with the financial decision to appease 3 players, or 300 players, WOTC took the more logical choice of pleasing 300 players and unfortunately was not able to please those sorry 3 (namely, me, you, and a few others in the minority whose favorite settings got cut). They didn't string the product lines along by giving them to the worst, least payed and least qualified developers to produce one product every few months or two a year at best (which was what was originally proposed during some discussions). Putting vast amounts of time, money, nd resources into a marginally small market group is not, cannot be, nor will it ever be, an intelligent thing to do. Simple as that. No amount of cattle prodding will alter that basic and fundamental principle. So they lost a small market. And kept the market majority. Is this sleazy? Nope. Its business. I don't stock up on nearly as much WOTC material as I did when it was run by TSR (mainly because of the vast amounts of quality products that are available by 3rd party publishing companies such as Mongoose, Sovereign Press, Necromancy, and tons of others). Hence, they've lost my business, mostly anyway.
To make money THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PLEASE US!!!!
Us. Hmm, I think I speak for several people in stating my resentment at being included with you as the 'us' part of that statement.
For one, 'I' am not the majority. I do not expect the majority to agree with my tastes (Planescape and Darksun), I don't expect the majority feel as I do about the RPG industry (that its declining in many aspects to a roll-playing industry); I don't expect the majority to purchase the same products (otherwise, Skyrealms of Jorune would be at the top of the market). That means its up to me (not some company) to find my own personal niche. To search a little harder for the products that appeal to me instead of just expecting them handed out to me at my doorstep. That means its up to me to create for my gaming group the things that I want and need, not to just sit and wait for it to be published by someone else.
I think the old adage really applies here that: "If you want something done right, do it yourself. If you can't do it yourself, then have a coke and a smile and shut the frick up."
I did mean to add a personal defense statement about that whole brownnose thingie.
If you ask a few people, especially over in the Dark Sun boards, you'll quickly learn that I am first and foremost against WOTC or any third party major publishing companies ever again aquiring the full lisence and publishing rights to any of the 'Dead Worlds' settings. Also, I never once said that I agreed with WOTC business practices. They are shrewd indeed, but intelligent. I highly doubt that any company I ran would be as shrewd as that, and hence, I would likely find myself bankrupt and closing shop rather quickly. Personally, I think the 'Dead World' settings are right where they belong, in the hands of the players who cared enough to keep them alive. Not once did I praise WOTC. I understand their perspective as a former business owner myself (but alas, the business world is shred and often sleazy and so I got out with my sanity in tact), but I did garner praise for the independant developers. Don't mistake one for the other. As for the sleazy remark, I regret to say that I atributed that particular remark incorrectly. To Alzrius, I apologize. As for the strictures on publishing by 3rd party companies, the only logic behind that practice is to avoid market flooding whereupon the market taps itself out in one regard (spending their fiscal alotment on 3rd party books) rather than spreading it around (spending a little on this company, a little on this one, etc). Sorry, but I was equating your idea of sleazy practices to mean barely legitamite ones, and also incorrectly attributing its source.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
As for the sleazy remark, I regret to say that I atributed that particular remark incorrectly. To Alzrius, I apologize. As for the strictures on publishing by 3rd party companies, the only logic behind that practice is to avoid market flooding whereupon the market taps itself out in one regard (spending their fiscal alotment on 3rd party books) rather than spreading it around (spending a little on this company, a little on this one, etc). Sorry, but I was equating your idea of sleazy practices to mean barely legitamite ones, and also incorrectly attributing its source.
It's cool; we all make mistakes. I'm just glad that you handled doing so with such grace - all too often on message boards people who get called on making an error just start a flame war over it. It's nice to see someone act mature for a change.
I am glad that you cleared up the question of if you flamed me and I hereby retract the brownnose statement.
On some points(I don't have time to go into detail) I stand corrected. Obviously I have been a little on the touchy side, all I can say is I'm trying to do better.
Pehaps I should explaine my position:
I have watched D&D go from THE definitive rpg to declineto near ruin. And yes TSR made horrible mistakes with the game. The need for AD&D 3e was there and had been voiced. Those of us that had asked if one was coming were ignored.
Of course at this time two of the most worthless games ever got popular: Vampire, and magic the gathering.
So wotc takes over Tsr a 3e is coming. I'm actually happy about this. I get the books and look at the rules. I was thrilled. The rules were understandable yes it was a little easier to min/max but it looked as if all my "detroy the powergamers pc and make him cry" tricks would still work.
Then I find out about the things I commented on. wotc is repeating tsr's mistakes. They are not answering e-mails strait, they are saturating the markets too many books too fast.
They kepp telling us Greyhawk is the default setting but they will not answer a simple yes or no question about if the book is coming.
I look at it like this....it starts with one person questioning them. Asking the staff either in e-mail or teying to post on the boards what thet think they are doing.
So thats what I have been doing. I do love 3e I like alot that wotc has done. If you look at this I am aiming this stuff not at the wizo's not at Andy Collins or any of the other wtriters. I'm aiming this at the weasels in management.
The ones that are counting thier money while they kill the game.
I will contiue to do so until wotc realizes what it is doing.
So wyvern76 that isswhat I am doing. Yes it my be growing tiresome I hope the right people are seeing this. BUT I will continue to point wotc's disasters and mismanagement to them!!!
Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes
They kepp telling us Greyhawk is the default setting but they will not answer a simple yes or no question about if the book is coming.
What book are you waiting for? Was the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer not enough for you?
Wyvern
Of course at this time two of the most worthless games ever got popular: Vampire,
I like Vampire.
I like 3e as well.
I am quite happy with the material WotC is putting out. Of course, they seem to operate more form a bussiness point of view than TSR. And sometimes that can be harsh. But if you want to complain about companies, I think WotC is one of the more decent ones. I think, the way they run their business make si tpossible for them to keep D&D alive and well. Being in it just for the hobby doesn't work anymore these days.
I think it is naive to think that is possible. In order to keep this product line going, you have to be a bit sleazy at times.
I think WotC is doing pretty good.
Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes
Seriously, don't make me laugh.
That's NOT an answer. Seriously, what more do you want? IIRC, the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer is 196 pages long. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is 320 pages, which includes information on races, spells and monsters (none of which are needed for Greyhawk since it uses the defaults) and a couple of mini-adventures (again, not needed for Greyhawk since WotC's adventures are written for Greyhawk by default). Ignoring those pages, the FRCS is less than 50% longer than the LGG, at twice the cost. (Of course, you're paying for those "extra" pages as well, and the production values are higher, so it evens out.) So I ask you again, what specifically was not included in the LGG that you think should have been? And if they rereleased the LGG with added material, would you be happy or would you complain like you did wrt 3.5e that they're ripping people off by "forcing" them to upgrade?
Wyvern
Now I don't want the book for the rpga's "table top online campaign" I want an actual Greyhawk book not a gazeteer. A setting like the realms and the upcoming Dragonlance setting.
That said This is a planescape discussion not A Greyhawk one. If you looked at the Greyhawk boards you would see that they are just as unhappy about the gazeteer as I am about Wotc abandoning the PS setting.
Wyvern, I'm out of this pi$$ing contest we won't agree I already have apologized for my unintentional antagonizing of people over this stuff {quitting smoking...I'm a little snappy}.
Now can we please talk about the great day in july when we are downloading the first PS books?
Originally posted by Alzrius
I'm glad someone else caught this. I was a bit worried that what I actually meant would be lost in there.
The specific thing I was referring to as sleazy is, as Wyvern correctly noted, the fact that WotC is taking the bulk of the profits for the lesser amount of work.
There are other practices in there that I feel are rather sleazy in the sense that WotC is using the upper hand they have in negotiations to force a third-part publisher to agree to various stipulations in how they proceed with the licensed property even after licensing it. Jamie Chambers of Sovereign Press expounded on this over at EN World:
While I understand that it is WotC perogative to make money, and that these old campaigns are their intellectual property, but this sort of thing seems to have no particular practicle value - especially since further books, in this case, aren't even published by them (WotC). It's reasons like this why other d20 companies are very hesitant now to publish the old campaigns.
I guess I consider that intelligent business strategy. The OGL / d20 scheme was sheer brilliance. Why shouldn't WotC profit? More so, what business wouldn't want to profit without putting in the cost of work? While I may disagree with certain decisions made by WotC, and mainly because of their impact on my personal gaming experience, I applaud the company's success at reinvigorating RPGing, as well as making some money off of it.
Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes
Now I don't want the book for the rpga's "table top online campaign" I want an actual Greyhawk book not a gazeteer. A setting like the realms and the upcoming Dragonlance setting.
That still doesn't answer my question about what specific items you think should have been included in the LGG that weren't. I get the impression that you're letting the name "Gazetteer" and the RPGA label blind you to the fact that the LGG is a fairly complete setting book. Maybe not quite as complete as the FRCS, but then it seems to me that Greyhawk was never as richly-detailed as the Realms in the first place. Then again, perhaps that's my personal bias showing... (I'm not an FR afficianado by any means, but it does strike me as a more diverse setting than Greyhawk.)
As for your posts in other forums, I simply don't have the time nor the stomach for negativity to keep up with every forum on Wizards' message boards, which is why I limit myself to those that cover the topics I'm most interested in (namely Planescape, Spelljammer, and the three "thinktank" forums).
Anyway, as you pointed out, this has gone way off-topic and I've no desire to prolong an argument for argument's sake. I really would like to know exactly how you find the LGG lacking, though. I'm not just saying that to be contrary, I'm honestly curious now.
Wyvern