Too Many Mechanics

Recently I picked up issue #8 of Kobold Quarterly, mainly for the article on Warlord battle cries. I love the idea of "battle cries" but I've rarely seen any that didn't sound stupid when actually used. Anyway, while reading through the article on "glyph magic", I was struck at how unappealing that particular article was to me. Mainly because, like so many articles in Dragon, pre-and-post 4E, it primarily was just more mechanical options; in this case, new spells. Now, there's nothing wrong with that (and I'm sure the article itself was done well), but 3.5 really burned me out on the piling on of more and more mechanics. While I do think the 3.5 Player's Handbook was a bit lacking (no more or less than the 4E one), I don't think twenty+ additional books of crunch were necessary (not even taking into account the third party books). Granted, everything beyond core is optional, but that's my point - there wasn't enough that appealed to me beyond core since so much was about new numbers you could apply to your PC. And I'm not talking about more fluff, either (though fluff is always cool); rather, I think I was looking for stuff that I could use outside of just buffing up an NPC. That's a problem I intended to avoid in 4E - buying too many books that I wasn't going to use. So far, I haven't been very successful at that - at this point I have pretty much every 4E hardcover out other than the FR campaign book (I do have the FR player's guide, though I may part with that since I can get the drow and swordmage rules - the reason I bought the book - from the Compendium in DDI). On the other hand, I am getting usefulness or seeing it in the books I've bought - we use Adventurer's Vault and Martial Power regularly, I like the content and potential in Manual of the Planes, and while I haven't gotten around to reading them yet I'm already making plans for using material in Draconomicon and Open Grave. Of course, as time goes on we'll see how much more I'll be getting...

Along those lines, I'd like to see Dragon return to more of a style it had in the '80s, when it was supporting 1E, with articles that weren't just mechanical enhancements to the game (the 3.x version had this same problem as well, so this is both a beef with WotC and Paizo). Maybe I'm not seeing it, but it seemed like they had a bit less crunch but more value to me in those days - articles to stimulate the imagination, or present historical (and fantastic) ways to handle coinage, communication, laws, etc. I understand the rationale behind the way Dragon has been for awhile, but still. Maybe KQ is like this - I haven't read through enough of it yet to know. If it's not, hopefully I can find something out there that is...

(OK, that kind of rambled. I'll try to do better in the future :)

Edit: This post (the first one, at least) at ENWorld ties in with what I'm saying above. It also calls to mind previous 3.x campaigns; when a new splatbook would come it, many of the players would scour them for "kewl powerz" - "character concept" generally didn't play into it. Now, if that's your thing, great, but not something that appeals to me (finding something cool and creating/shaping a character to fit that is something else entirely - for instance, I like the duskblade (3.5)/swordmage (4E) not because of they have "the most pluses" or anything like that, but because I like the concept).

Eagle Games Closes Down

Unfortuantely, Eagle Games has had to cease operations.

It's always sad to hear that another game company has had to close down. I only had one game from these guys (Attack!, and its expansion), but I liked their stuff. If I had more time and more willing players I'd probably have bought a few more of their games.

Best of luck to the people involved.

More Drama from the Gaming Community

I'm talking about this and this.

Some random, Adam Smithian thoughts about this:

• RPGNow has every right to run their business how they want. The thing that turns me off is the marketing, spin-doctoring about how this is "better" for the "indie" publishers. If the majority of their sales comes from the main site, they're going to devote most of their efforts there - it only makes sense. Having "The Edge" (oooooo!) site seems more like PR than good business. Maybe they're trying to avoid the (small and in the end, ineffectual) backlash that White W- er, DriveThruRPG had when they were initially perceived as "too selective" or some such. My opinion: Focus on what drives your business and don't worry about the "indies". If there's a market for them (and there is), someone else will come along and fill that niche. I think it would make more sense to have RPGNow focus on its "main" site and have someone else handle the "indies"; someone who could focus just on their needs and not their's and publishers who complain about having to operate in a free market.
• My last comment was based on publishers who derive an income in gaming who don't like that people who are hobbyists or amateurs are producing product as well. This fits in with that "elitist/prima-donna" attitude I've commented on in the past that annoys me (again, as I've said before, this isn't all publishers, just a vocal few). I really hate it when people complain about the very market forces they themselves have used to their advantage but which are inconvenient once they've reached a certain level in the market.
• That said, if complaints of the "mainstream" publishers drove this decision (and it sounds like that may have been the case, but there were a number of other factors as well), so be it. RPGNow has to consider what's best for its well-being.
• When someone says "If this makes it harder for new publishers to get into the business, good!", they kind of sound like an elitist prick (even if I know they're not) But, really, it's true. People shouldn't be publishing unless they're serious about it. But if they're serious about it, it won't be any harder for them than it would be otherwise - they're going to go through the same planning and processes as they would otherwise. Naturally, the market will weed out the crap and let the quality rise to the top. I wouldn't stand in the way of that. It's just nice if there are processes that help facilitate that.
• To go back to my previous thought, I think a better statement would be "If this makes it harder for new publishers to get into the business who shouldn't be there in the first place, good!" That qualifier seems less prickish, and in most cases is probably implied. We've all seen small-press...excuse me, "independent" publishers comes and go who should never have been there to begin with (though they get some credit for giving it a shot; unfortunately, it probably hurt them the most in the long wrong). Good ideas, quality, talent...if you have the drive and ambition to go along with them, you're going to succeed in a free market. The degree of success is something for another discussion.
• Someone complained that this would be an impediment to people with good ideas, creativity, and talent. Bull. What did these sort of people do before RPGNow? The exposure people have to one another owes exponetially more to the Internet itself than RPGNow, the OGL, ENWorld, or anything else.
• Usually if I'm looking for something in PDF it's not by publisher or title, but by subject matter. What I want to see is a search utility that looks at both RPGNow and "RPGEdge" (or whatever the hell it's called) and gives me results based on the subject I'm looking for.

That's enough drama on my part... And before someone complains, my putting quotes around "edge" or "indie" or whatever is not meant to be denigrating to small publishers. I just find the terminology to be a little ridiculous. "We're cutting edge!" "We're independent!" C'mon. You're a small publisher with a new or niche product. You don't need "hip" labels, just product a quality product. Reminds me of the self-imposed titles a lot of the PDF publishers were using (and sometimes still use) for their "positions" within their companies. It's rather ridiculous to call yourself an "RPG Products Brand Manager" when the company consists of you and two of your gaming buddies publishing PDFs from your spare bedroom...

Does Anyone Who Matters (the Consumers) Care About Industry Awards?

I was reading a thread over on ENWorld about this year's Origins Awards and the "ENnies" and issues surrounding both, and the overriding question in my mind was: Who really cares? Granted, it's nice to get an award for something you did, whether from the "fans" or your peers, but it seems like there's so much unnecessary complexity and way too much drama surrounding this stuff.

I can't think of a single gaming item that I purchased because it won any sort of award. I base my purchases on things like utility, what material is covered, previous experience with the author's/publisher's work, reviews from sources I respect, etc. Maybe it's just me, though from what I've seen and read I don't think so.

I'm not saying that such awards should be eliminated, but for what little true importance and value they have, it seems to me that the interested parties should just lighten up and stop treating them with so much gravity.

Good Example of Bad Advertising

The first post in this thread on ENWorld.

If a product isn't selling or an ad isn't getting clicked, try a different approach other than "You consumers need to check this product out! We spent a lot of money on our advertising!" If people aren't interested in something, you're not going to browbeat them into getting interested. This comes off as very unprofessional, which is not what you want if you want to be taken seriously.

Later in the thread, the original poster mentions that he may stop advertising on ENWorld since he's not getting enough return on his investment, but he would prefer to keep doing it. But then later he says that it's "...not really about money..." So - which is it? Are you running a business or are you spending money on your hobby?

But, I digress. This thread reminded me of a former Inphobia columnist (McCubbin, maybe?) who was ranting a few years ago about how gamers were responsible for the magazine tanking because they weren't sophisticated enough to appreciate it (Inphobia was what White Wolf Magazine warped into). The concept that it simply wasn't to people's tastes was lost on him. Of course, there are a number of prima donna game writers out there with the patronizing attitude that you should simply buy whatever they put out since they know better than you what's good. The ones with long term success are those who actually put out what people want (though that may mean appealling to the LCD) or those who put out good stuff that isn't universally appreciated but don't rant about how Joe Gamer doesn't "get it."

Adventure Maps

How much do adventure publishers spend on maps? I don't have a lot of third-party d20 adventures, so maybe what I'm saying doesn't apply. But in a lot of the ones I've seen, both from WotC and some of the smaller publishers, the cartography is presented as 3D-rendered, photorealistic works of computer art. Looks nice - but has very little utility. I don't care if a bed is fully rendered to look all fluffy with a patchwork quilt, or if the hardwood floor really has a grained texture to it. I want something I can use:

• Make it monochrome (B&W is good) so I can photocopy it for easy mark-up.
• Give me a square grid so I can easily and quickly draw it out on a battlemat or use it with MasterMaze pieces during the game.
• Use standard map symbols so I can tell what things are at a glance.
• If you don't need to, don't make rooms, corridors, etc. odd lengths. Does that room really have to be 22' long by 13' wide? 20x15 or 20x10 or whatever works out much easier on a grid system, which d20 encourages, and if it has no impact on the adventure or "realism", the players aren't going to care.

I prefer 3E (3.5) to 1E, but the maps in 1E were much easier to work with. This isn't nostalgia talking - it's practicality.

(Yes, this is a repeat from my "Articles" page; I posted it here since it seems more appropriate to be in a blog).

Adobe DRM Hassles? Naw...

From DriveThruRPG's website:

The DRM features of Acrobat 7 have not been implemented by Adobe.
If you upgrade to 7, you will be unable to access your e-books. Please wait
until Adobe posts a corrected version. We will announce it here.

I recall seeing in webforum discussions that various concerns people had were essentially dismissed by DriveThruRPG when they first announced they were using DRM. One in particular was the longevity of the PDFs - that is, how long would people be able to open the PDFs into the future. Despite the fact that one of the DRM apologists claimed that most of the gaming books he's owned he's tossed after a few years or so, this is a very valid concern (for instance, I - like many others - still crack open my 1st Edition DMG from time-to-time, and that book is over 25 years old).

Now, I'm not sure what the deal is above since I just tried opening some of the PDFs I've gotten from DTRPG in Acrobat 7 and it worked just fine - though it did require me to re-register Acrobat through Adobe again, which was a big of a pain. This isn't a major issue, but it does turn on a brighter warning light, in my opinion.

Another interesting issue concerning this: it sounds like Microsoft is going to be giving up on its "Passport" system. This is the same system you use to register Acrobat with Adobe for DRM. Now, I'm sure something else will replace it, but it will no doubt involve more hassles for people who simply want to use PDFs they have legitimately purchased and downloaded. I'm all for protecting the rights of producers and artists, but at some point these guys have to realize that all they're doing is making life harder for the people that are their true audience, since the thieves and pirates are always going to find a way around their "protection" schemes.

Seems to me the best use of DTRPG is to get material you couldn't otherwise get in print (whether due to shipping issues or for things that are out-of-print, etc.), and then print it off so you know you at least will always have something to show for the cash you shelled out.

More Lack of Perspective

Ran across this, on another amateur d20 company's site:

Due to some recent policy changes with the d20 STL over at Wizards of the Coast, many industry figures are moving away from the use of the "d20 System" logo as a sign of rules compatibility. Many have pretty much settled on a single logo and license, termed "Prometheus", as an indicator of ONLY rules compatibility.

Define "many". Last I checked, any d20 company that had any significant presence in print or in PDF was still using the d20 logo. Only people on the fringe are using the "Prometheus" logo and most of them are theoretical publishers*. There's nothing wrong with that logo and the philosophies of its creator (the Free Gaming Assocation) are certainly commendable. But the simple fact of the matter is that companies that truly have a stake in the d20 market - companies like Mongoose, Necromancer, S&SS - are still using it. While some are moving away from d20 or diversifying their product lines, that has nothing to do with the last time WotC changed the license - it's driven by the market. And none of them are moving towards Prometheus.

Side note: Looks like a lot of the links at the FGA site above are broken (they weren't working for me, at least). I don't know if there's been much activity there in awhile, either (the front page still has a 2003 copyright, and we're rapidly approaching 2005...). It's unfortunate, but that's the way of things when dealing with volunteer projects on the 'Net... in PDF was still using the d20 logo.


*: What's a "theoretical publisher"? A term I made up, of course. I'm referring to people that discuss the ramifications of publishing with the d20 license or alternate licenses, but have yet to actually publish anything in any medium. They talk about what WotC could do with the license in the future or how game publishers operate without actual experience in the industry (for two examples). There's a big difference between someone who actually has put forth the effort - and more importantly, the cash - to publish their own gaming products and someone who talks about it but likely will never end up doing it. That's not to say that actual publishers aren't concerned about the same issues, but they tend to approach it from a far more pragmatic point-of-view rather than debate hypotheticals back-and-forth.

Sometimes People Have the Same Idea

I was just reading a forum for a vanity press company that's claiming another game company stole the name of one of its products. The thread is filled with fanboys calling for blood, amazed at how "evil" the "thief" company is.

I'm amazed at how clueless these people are. Taking two common words and putting them together does not make you original or a genius. You may get a cool phrase out of it, but you aren't particularly original. To borrow some thoughts from the OGL mailing list, if I produce a monster called a "Frost Ape" and then a year later see a product with a different creature called a "Frost Ape", that doesn't mean they "stole" my idea.

Reminds me somewhat of someone I used to work with (though he was only guilty of ignorance rather than the ridiculousness I saw above). He enjoyed RPGs, but didn't really have any experience with tabletop games. He regularly would mention an idea he had and would be amazed when I mentioned that someone had already done that in such-and-such a game, usually 10 or 15 years earlier. Granted, Google wasn't as big a deal back when we talked about that sort of thing, but he never considered that someone else could possibly have come up with the same sort of thing he had. Personally, whenever I come up with something "original", I assume that someone else may have thought of it and try to verify if that was the case. Whether that makes a difference or not in what I do with it is another story...

(I'm not going to mention the companies in question simply because I don't want to give any publicity to the "victimized" company, who I've had a negative opinion of since they first appeared - and it's only gotten worse).

Monday Musings

A web posting (more of a press release) on a gameboard I frequent contained this statement in regards to the company posting:

"...a company dedicated to producing high quality RPG products"

Are there any companies that are dedicated to producing low quality products? That admit to it? I've seen this in a number of places - "We make high quality products!" Sure, Chester. I think I'll be the judge of that. You don't need to say that; the very fact that you are producing something implies that you think it's high quality. This sort of thing just seems like a typical, amateur marketing phrase that really means nothing.

Another one along those lines: "By gamers, for gamers." I may have said this before, but I'll say it again: This is a tired cliché that needs to be put to rest. Most RPG companies have products made "by gamers" - even the designers at the megalith WotC are gamers, though their business people might not be (but that's not their purpose). Even if the products aren't made by "gamers", if they're good - who cares? Though generally those companies don't last long, so it tends to be a moot point.

Turning to the site, I actually got Chronicle #6 published on time. I didn't think I would, given how little time I've had to spend on it in the past couple of weeks. But the weather this weekend was rather crummy around here (north of Chicago), so I was able to finish it up. And get a bunch of raking done. Raking is a pain; I'd rather vaccuum the leaves off the trees before they fall and save some time... Anyway, the revised Gazetteer is almost done; the history chapter is the only thing left, and that's mainly because how it ends depends on the current campaign.

DRM, PDF, DTRPG, and other acronyms...

The current debate sparked by the emergence of DriveThruRPG.com concerning the security on the PDFs they sell is interesting to follow. On the one end of the spectrum are gamers who are screaming about their "rights" being "violated". At the other end of the spectrum are publishers who, quite frankly, are being complete asses in their responses (I understand how frustrating dealing with people at the other end can be, but please - aren't you guys supposed to be the "professionals" in this industry? Try to act like it). In between - fortunately - are rational arguments by both "sides" about the pro's and con's of what's being done.

My take on this (for anyone that cares) is that I don't like it. The "copy/paste 10 times every 10 days" thing isn't that restrictive, it's a combination of two things - lack of portability and cost. From what I understand, it sounds like it's a major inconvenience to use one of these PDFs on more than one machine. So if I plunk down $30 for one, I need to re-register it on my laptop it I want to use it there as well as if I want to copy it to my USB drive and read it at work during lunch. Note that I'm talking about legitimate uses of something I legally bought - I'm not advocating piracy. I wouldn't be posting an opinion about this if I did - I'd just shrug and grab the files off of Kazaa or one of the other file-sharing networks. I need to look into this more, though, as I'm not entirely sure this is an issue as some are describing it.

Now, if I'm buying a PDF, I expect it to cost less than the print version of the book. If part of the cost of a print book is due to costs for paper, ink, warehousing, etc., and those costs are eliminated with a PDF, I expect that savings to be passed on to me. Particularly since if I decide to print out the PDF, it's going to cost me additional money to do so. And if the PDF is in color, I need to print it somewhere other than my desktop (my laser printer is B&W)...which leads back to the inconvenience I mention above. Now, if the PDF is being released at the same time as the print version, I can understand charging the same price - you don't want to cannibalize your sales of the print book by charging less for the PDF. But I would expect the PDF price to decrease, then, after the initial front-log time of 90 days (or whatever they call it) is done.

There's also format issues. Again, many publishers are dismissing that as a concern, but my 1st Edition DMG still works - and it's over 20 years old. So do the Original D&D and Travellers books I have - with the former being almost older than me. Adobe stands to be around for a good while - but for how long? What if their format for DRM'ed PDFs change in the next 3-5 years? How easy is it to "convert" a DRM'ed PDF to a new version? Format obsolence is a bigger deal than most people think, in my opinion. And the world and computer industry do change rapidly; how many people are still using VisiCalc or dBase, or TurboPascal? Extreme examples, to be sure, but this is still an issue. Track down a copy of "Dark Ages II: When the Digital Data Die" and read it (informative, though a little dry) if you don't think so.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I think this is still a great way to get old, OOP stuff and it's certainly nice for the people who can't get the print version of books easily or cheaply. But for me, the way the DRM is being done adds no value, and actually reduces the value of products where the option is an eBook or a printed version in almost all cases. If I want cut-and-paste ease, the value may increase over-and-above how much it's decreased by DRM, but in general, all the DRM does is make it less likely I would buy the eBook over the printed product.

Again, I'm not claiming my "rights" are being "violated", and I'm not trying to tell any of the publishers how they "need" to run their businesses. I'm simply expressing my opinion as a consumer. I may be one of the 4-5 insignificant geeks that the publishers don't care about, and if that's the case, then so be it...though I find it odd how they keep reminding us how small the industry is, but then dismiss out-of-hand those people who disagree with them - which right now isn't really that small a number (I'm extrapolating a bit, but remember that it's people on-line who buy PDFs, so using the people who are debating the issue right now as a sample isn't too outlandish); but hey, who are we to question them? Our purpose is to buy their books regardless of quality so the Stackpole's of the world don't have to get real jobs!

Hmm...I wonder how much traffic I would get if I posted some specious, trollish argument about D&D (or Vampire or GURPS...those two would be even better since I have virtually no experience with either ;) and posted a link to my site on ENWorld so people would come and read it?

I suppose I could post about the commercial d20 book I was looking through (published some time ago) that obviously used TableSmith to generate a bunch of its material but doesn't actually give any mention about the program. Not that there's any "legal" requirement to do so, but it would be a nice courtesy, particularly given how that sort of thing is supposed to be "common" in the industry. I guess that only applies to publishers and not to the inferior drones whose only purpose in their eyes is to purchase without question the phenomenal material churned out by their prima donna warrior-poets who call themselves "game designers".

No, I'm not talking about all publishers or writers. Yes, I'm in a spiteful mood. It will pass.