Re: Offtopic - "4DVENTURE"

From: "Matt Hoffman" <manta928@?????.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:37 PM


> On Aug 26, 2007, at 11:07 AM, David Shepheard wrote:
>
>>> Not even the internet generation is entirely beyond the use of  old 
>>> media. Kids still listen to the radio (alternatively using  actual 
>>> radios or with their iPods), still read books (Harry  Potter 
>>> phenomenon, anyone?), and still watch an enormous (I dare  suggest 
>>> unhealthy) amount of television.
>>
>> That isn't written material, so doesn't go against WotC's point of  view. 
>> In fact all those sources are rivals for time spent on RPGs.
>
> But the point remains: old media has not been crushed in the face of  new 
> information media. In fact, the most successful paradigm is that  which 
> hybridizes old media with new media. Using web content to  "enhance" the 
> content of Dragon or Dungeon magazines is a perfect  example, and one that 
> was used by the magazines for years.

I never argued that old media was crushed. I think that paper RPG magazines 
have their place in the market.

I find it ironic that people talk about "kids" listening to the radio, when 
a few years ago other people were arguing that "modern technology" was going 
to kill radio. Over the years people have made all sorts of ridiculous 
claims about what "kids" will be doing or wearing in 5 years time. Only a 
tiny percentage of these claims ever come true.

Web enhancements - open or with DRM - are a totally different thing to 
something like a D&D podcast. I think that WotC should be putting out 
podcasts*. But things like podcasts are minority markets. Just like 
magazines are minority markets.

* = Note the plural. I think they should actually have a podcast for each 
D&D campaign setting they support (and maybe even podcasts aimed 
specifically at DMs). For the campaign settings they no longer support, I 
think they should choose an "official podcast" in the same way that they 
have authorised official websites.

> Here we're not talking about the fate of the RPG in general: that's a 
> separate question with a separate answer. Assuming the fate of RPGs  is 
> assured, the matter at hand here is the fate and relevence of two 
> mainstay RPG periodical publications. WotC's argument seems to be  that 
> the magazines are neither relevent nor useful when there is web  content.

WotC shouldn't be choosing between online support or printed magazine 
support. They should support *all* of the minority markets. They shoulld 
have kept the Paizo licence going for as long as Paizo were willing to pay 
to renew it. If Paizo had decided to decline applying for the licence WotC 
could have put it out to tender and checked out anyone else willing to pick 
up the licence. A franchise has a lower economic risk to WotC, so arguments 
that magazine sales figures have dropped do not apply. D&D Insider should 
have been *another* way to find out about D&D.

> Or at least, that's what they appear to be saying publicly,  despite the 
> larger body of evidence and precedent which appears to  contradict them 
> (Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, the Washington  Post, CNN, BBC -- all 
> of them successful marriages of new and old  media, providing both print 
> and online content. Granted, something of  a departure in genre from RPGs, 
> but the ultimate success in newsmedia  is not something that should be so 
> easily ignored).

I don't think you can use anything other than another RPG to predict how 
multi-media content for D&D can be succesful. If you want to argue some sort 
of point, you should be referring to ENWorld website or the Dragonlance 
Canticle or the Hypertext d20 SRD.

> What I think they really think is that they don't want to have to 
> continue supporting Dragon and Dungeon magazines when schlubs on the 
> internet generate their own content and support for the D&D game for 
> free. Which, again, is an indication of Wizards' not wishing to be 
> bothered with That which is Fluff.

I think it is too early to make that guess. You could just as easily argue 
that WotC didn't think that the duel-copyright nature of official websites 
(like Beyond the Moons) made it harder to bring the best bits of fan rules 
back into a rebooted 3rd edition campaign setting.

The new regime means that if Adam had published his Crimson Sphere idea on 
their website, he wouldn't be able to stop them from doing a Dark 
Sun/Spelljammer crossover setting, by saying he invented the idea.

I actually think that WotC are "solving" a problem that doesn't actually 
exist, because the official websites all seem to bend over backwards to help 
out. Dragonlance Nexus "staff" have a very close relationship with MWP and I 
believe a lot of unpaid proofreading goes on behind the scenes.

>>> It will never be like it was before. Though WotC is convinced that 
>>> magazines as a medium are irrelevent to gamers, I foresee a number  of 
>>> publications striving to replace Dragon and Dungeon's seats in  the 
>>> pantheon of roleplaying. But even so, it just won't be the  same. Come 
>>> what may, this will be remembered as among the most  tragic fumbles in 
>>> D&D history.
>>
>> Given the current information, I suspect you will be right. But  nobody 
>> can say for sure until we have given WotC the time to proove  their case.
>>
>> I'm prepared to give them time. But I'm not prepared to hand over  any 
>> cash until they proove that 4th edition is going to be more  than a game 
>> engine.
>
> Maybe. I'd long ago resigned myself to never handing over any cash to 
> Wizards again  :-p  But we'll see.

The boys in the marketing company can now argue that we are not in the 
target group. This will allow them to ignore our needs, on the grounds that 
we are not "potential customers" any more.

>> Why want new people* playing D&D?
>>
>> This may surprise you but I don't actually care about D&D at all.  But I 
>> do care about Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms,  Greyhawk and 
>> certain other campaign settings.
>>
>> And those settings need D&D to work. So the "priciple of  enlightened 
>> self interest" means that I have to try to help people  find a version of 
>> D&D that supports Spelljammer.
>>
>> 2nd edition works, but it is out of print. You can't buy it in the  shops 
>> and it isn't marketed. That is the only thing that I really  think is 
>> "wrong" with 2nd edition. Things like OSRIC can help, but  they only help 
>> so far. So again the "principle of enlightened self  interest" means that 
>> I have to find 3rd edition players and help  them to play Spelljammer.
>>
>> That means conversions and other stuff. Notice that at no point is  it in 
>> my interest to try to stop people playing older D&D versions.  These 
>> people generate a percentage of "fluff" that can be converted  for any 
>> edition of D&D.
>> <snip>
>
> I can see your point, even if I'm not as keen on evangelism anymore. 
> Getting new players into old settings is an awfully daunting task to  take 
> on, especially when the people who actually own the setting  don't seem to 
> especially care one way or the other if you succeed.

We don't actually need evangelism at the moment. We will probably need it in 
the future, but evangelism brings in new players, so I would argue that we 
need new content far more than we need new people.

I think that as a whole, we need to pad out the crystal spheres that TSR 
didn't fully document. And as a fan of crossover campaign settings, I think 
we also need other new crystal spheres like Adam's Crimson Sphere.

As fans of individual rules, we also need to add rules to the new content we 
generate, but we should all accept that if we make cool stuff, fans of other 
rules will probably want to convert our stuff to other versions of D&D.

My take on 3rd edition conversions, is that I want them and in the crossover 
settings (like Crimson Sphere) I think that we need to work with the Dark 
Sun fan communities to ensure that our conversions fit in with their 
conversions, as much as possible. I actually want any crossover settings to 
work for fans of Spelljammer and the other setting.

In WotC's defence, I would like to remind people that TSR killed off the 
Spelljammer product line.

> I've had my heart broken one too many times trying to introduce  young'uns 
> to fantastic things. I remember I showed one of the kids at  the 
> elementary school I work at the Gameboy Advance port of Final  Fantasy 4. 
> I told him "This is a really good game... but it was  better before they 
> touched up the graphics and changed the dialogue  translation." He looked 
> at me incredulously and said: "You mean these  graphics were WORSE!?"
>
> How dare he. HOW DARE HE. The seminal work of the 16-bit console RPG 
> genre. A literary classic in its own right. One of the carts that 
> established a golden age of RPGs on the SNES. And this kid had about  as 
> much respect for it as the canned peach slices they served in the 
> cafeteria that day.

16-bit? 16-bit! Anyone who likes retro-gaming *knows* that the "golden age" 
was during the days of 8-bit computers. :-P

Anyhoo, retro computer games do not really help improve SJ.

> You're asking for a mixed bag by bringing new players into the SJ  game. I 
> think that a lot of the material actually does stand the test  of time 
> (much better than FF4 does, anyway... apparently), but I  would ask for 
> care in trying to gussy it up to attract a new  audience.

Actually, I'm asking for people who already like SJ, and who come to the 
SJML and/or BtM to learn more, to add more content to *their* favorite parts 
of Spelljammer. I'm perfectly happy for 2nd edition fans to put out 100 
percent 2nd edition material and 3rd edition fans to put out 100 percent 
material. I'm happy for DL fans to only work on Krynnspace, FR fans to only 
work on Realmspace, GH fans to only work on Greyspace and fans of other 
campaign settings** to only work on SJ crossover settings.

** = I'm open to crossover settings made with campaign settings from 3rd 
party publishers.

If we make the sort of SJCS (and SJ conversion rules) that we think are in 
the spirit of the rules*** then we can enjoy using that material for 
Spelljammer games. Sharing material with each other should be our main goal.

*** = Or to put it another way: "What would Jeff Grubb do?"

 If we do put up "cool stuff", especially cool stuff that joins onto other 
campaign settings, then we are bound to attract some new people that way, 
but that is a secondary benifit. We have no need to marktet Spelljammer. 
(Not unless we want BtM to win an ENnie award.)

> Otherwise you might get something like "Spider Moon," which  (as far as I 
> know) was both unpopular with SJ fans and additionally  failed to attract 
> a new generation of SJ players.

Shadows of the Spider Moon and the nod to SJ in the FRCS might not have been 
enough for many fans, but they certainly were *not* a kick in the face.

SotSM can be turned into another "Hotel California"-style crystal sphere and 
anything missing from SotSM can become stuff that is missing from *one* 
sphere. It is that easy to turn something that isn't universally liked into 
something that can be used with the one-Material Plane model of the 
universe.

FRCS only gives a nod to SJ, but we can do anything we want with FRCS style 
"regional/racial feats", "monastic orders" and "paladin orders" and thereby 
use FRCS to make Realmspace a better place. We could put druid circles and 
portals on the other worlds of Realmspace. And we could (and should) freely 
use FRCS spells and deities throughout the crystal sphere.

> What? The MERP people aren't owned by WotC? You mean there are other 
> gaming companies and franchises that Hasbro hasn't utterly dominated? 
> What sorcery is this.

LOL

>> All they needed to do was jump on the bandwagon and use a campaign 
>> setting fairly similar to LotR in a publicity campaign.
>
> *coughcoughForgottenRealmscoughcough*  :-p

I was thinking Dragonlance was more iconic, but FR has wizards with pointy 
hats and that can pull in the Gandalf fans. And a FR film would be a great 
excuse to use the Underdark and the drow.

>> A live action Dragonlance film, could also have cashed in on Lord  of the 
>> Rings. However, they have settled for an animated film and  decided to go 
>> straight to DVD with it.
>
> Yeah, I'm not entirely sure how much I'm looking forward to the DL  movie. 
> I'm not especially eager to see how they're going to rape my  childhood.

I don't think Margaret Weis would have anything to do with a film she 
thought was going to "rape Dragonlance". I think the only problem with the 
film is going to be that WotC might bury it, so we never see the end of the 
story. But that happened to the LotR animated film and that wasn't the end 
for LotR. I can imagine someone coming back in 10-15 years with a live 
action remake of the DL film.

>> I think that D&D has a wealth of material to them that will mean  that 
>> great fantasy films come from them in the future. But I don't  think that 
>> wealth will be unlocked until people at the top realise  that D&D itself 
>> is worthless and the campaign settings are the  places where all the 
>> wealth is located.
>
> I don't think they will realize that. These are the people who made a 
> name for themselves off a fantasy trading card game. And as it's been 
> pointed out, it's not like they don't have the talent for it. They 
> inherited most of the old hands at TSR. Why they haven't been working 
> them -- really working them -- on things not related to crunch is  beyond 
> me (though I reserve the right to cast aspersions and make  wild 
> accusations).

I don't like colectable card games, but think we have more chance of seeing 
a Spelljammer CCG than a 4th edition SJ RPG. A SJ combat game (similar to 
D&D minis) would also fit in better with WotC's marketing style.

I say we just chug along with BtM and wait to see if anything useful comes 
from the direction of WotC. Wild accusations are just a waste of our time.

David "Big Mac" Shepheard
Virtual Eclipse Role Playing Club
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualeclipselrp/links/d20_system_001071937434/Spelljammer_001071430476
http://www32.brinkster.com/virtualeclipse/