TheRPGSite

Pathfinder and Goodman Games built companies off of them.   Wizards cares enough about them to admit publicly they need help writing them, yet the good old fashioned adventure module seems to be looked down upon by modern game companies.  We constantly hear "they don't sell".  I guess what it comes down to is, I don't buy that argument.

I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The really bad TSR period churned out some really bad modules and turned people off of the medium.  The D20 glut did the same for 3e.  

Modules got a bad name, so people stopped buying.
People stopped buying so modules got the "don't sell" tag.
Since a good module is hard work, designers dumped them for quick and dirty plot-point idea adventures (like SW) or the encounter-based framework (like 4e). The non-D&D games have followed suit.  Even when doing modules, the modules became lighter.  WFRP2 was much less detailed in modules then WFRP1.  SR3 and SR4 much less detailed then SR1 & SR2, etc.

Now we're at the point where we have an entire generation of RPGers that have never even looked at a module that they could run as is with a good level of background detail.

There are some exceptions to the "adventure-light" crowd.  Green Ronin does a decent job with the SIFRP modules, the Dragon Age ones are even better.  Kenzer knocked one out of the park with Frandor's Keep.  Goodman games keeps chugging along, but Necromancer Games stuff generally was better.  

Basically, I think modules will sell when their perceived worth increases.  The more information GM's can pillage from a module, the higher the perceived worth.  That's why modules don't sell today, IMO, a lot of people have no need for the style of the ones currently on the shelf.

Quote from: CRKrueger;373318Basically, I think modules will sell when their perceived worth increases.  The more information GM's can pillage from a module, the higher the perceived worth.  That's why modules don't sell today, IMO, a lot of people have no need for the style of the ones currently on the shelf.

So why put it in an adventure format? Why not just sell regular supplements? Those sell very well. I still don't get it.

-clash

Doesn't Chaosium still sell modules? Those were always very good.

Before you even consider worth, etc - only 1 person in any given group needs to buy it.

Quote from: flyingmice;373322So why put it in an adventure format? Why not just sell regular supplements? Those sell very well. I still don't get it.

-clash

I think for me, the idea is to reach as many different levels of creativity as possible.  Some people are awesome at creating their own stuff, others are lousy at coming up with their own stuff, but can take a written adventure and make it shine as their own.  Most people are somewhere in the middle.

If you give me a book of NPCs, setting pieces, story-arcs etc,  I have to piece them all together to make something coherent.  If you give me a series of modules that has all that detail in there, as well as maps, locations, adventure ideas, etc.  I can run it as is if I choose, or I can change things anywhere from just a little to basically rewriting the whole thing.

The idea is that with a complete adventure module, you exercise as much or as little creativity as you want, yet still have a complete product.  In a sense, they are the ultimate GM's training kit for adventure design.

Detail is time. Time is money. Money has worth.  I'll buy something if it shaves off my prep time.  The more it shaves, the quicker I'll buy it.

Blah. I take personal JOY in putting as much work into my world as possible.

Quote from: CRKrueger;373327I think for me, the idea is to reach as many different levels of creativity as possible.  Some people are awesome at creating their own stuff, others are lousy at coming up with their own stuff, but can take a written adventure and make it shine as their own.  Most people are somewhere in the middle.

If you give me a book of NPCs, setting pieces, story-arcs etc,  I have to piece them all together to make something coherent.  If you give me a series of modules that has all that detail in there, as well as maps, locations, adventure ideas, etc.  I can run it as is if I choose, or I can change things anywhere from just a little to basically rewriting the whole thing.

The idea is that with a complete adventure module, you exercise as much or as little creativity as you want, yet still have a complete product.  In a sense, they are the ultimate GM's training kit for adventure design.

Detail is time. Time is money. Money has worth.  I'll buy something if it shaves off my prep time.  The more it shaves, the quicker I'll buy it.

OK, a good answer - thanks! I couldn't write one of those if you held a gun to my head, though! :D

I have never purchased a module.

Quote from: One Horse Town;373326Before you even consider worth, etc - only 1 person in any given group needs to buy it.

DINGDINGDING!

Also: Buy one larger module, and you are good for half a year. Or buy twelve old Dungeon magazines, and you are good for...two years minimum.

I've always bought adventure modules for the games I liked... if they had adventure modules.
I can't think of an instance where I ran any of them straight as written... but used them as a 'bits box' for ongoing campaigns... modules with maps, floorplans, deckplans were especially useful.
I prefer them cheap though, PDFs are good. More than 10 bucks or so and I start finding other things I want more... so I can see how they may not be worthwhile for the company making them.

Paizo's adventure path books seem to sell well.  What's inside them?  Would you consider them adventure modules?  Other than name recognition through Dungeon/Dragon, what are they doing right?

Quote from: shalvayez;373329Blah. I take personal JOY in putting as much work into my world as possible.

I do too, but I'd like to run something more then once every two months.  I haven't run a module "as is" since the 80s.  GM's beg, borrow or steal from just about any media source, that includes modules.

Quote from: One Horse Town;373326Before you even consider worth, etc - only 1 person in any given group needs to buy it.

And only one or two every quarter.

Seanchai

Quote from: Simlasa;373333I prefer them cheap though, PDFs are good. More than 10 bucks or so and I start finding other things I want more... so I can see how they may not be worthwhile for the company making them.

I think this, though, is the solution for the good points about only one person in a group needing to buy the module, and for not needing many in a 6-month to a year period. I'd say if I had a game company, I would never consider modules to be the big sellers or cash cows, but I'd give making pdf adventures that I just left up in my online store indefinitely a whirl.

I like writing adventures. I prefer it in fact to writing supplements because I don't have to hash out new rules, feats, etc. I've had limited success with sales so now I only write adventures for games I'm actually playing or promoting. For me it takes very little effort to go from gaming notes to publishable adventure, plus it keeps me in the writing groove.   Like I'll probably flesh out a few adventures for Stormrift (got one ready to go) and either offer them for free on Precis collaborative site or sell the PDFs, depending on whether or not they can be easily converted to straight post apocalypse scenarios.

Pete

I rarely buy modules because I have rarely come across any that had a decent plot. I don't care for straight dungeon crawls so a majority are out the window to start with. Others with more event driven plots seemed too railroad-y with very tenuous connections from part to part.

I usually have the best luck writing my own scenarios with a basic premise of - these are the NPCs and this is what they are trying to do. If left unimpeded, they will succeed. Insert PCs and let them react as they wish and the NPCs will in turn react accordingly and adjust their tactics in pursuit of their goal.

Sometimes I will buy a module if it has some good re-usable bits in it, like a well fleshed out city, town or region or several interesting NPCs statted up for me, or even a few good maps.

Quote from: CRKrueger;373318Pathfinder and Goodman Games built companies off of them.   Wizards cares enough about them to admit publicly they need help writing them, yet the good old fashioned adventure module seems to be looked down upon by modern game companies.  We constantly hear "they don't sell".  I guess what it comes down to is, I don't buy that argument.

I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The really bad TSR period churned out some really bad modules and turned people off of the medium.  The D20 glut did the same for 3e.  

Modules got a bad name, so people stopped buying.
People stopped buying so modules got the "don't sell" tag.
Since a good module is hard work, designers dumped them for quick and dirty plot-point idea adventures (like SW) or the encounter-based framework (like 4e). The non-D&D games have followed suit.  Even when doing modules, the modules became lighter.  WFRP2 was much less detailed in modules then WFRP1.  SR3 and SR4 much less detailed then SR1 & SR2, etc.

Now we're at the point where we have an entire generation of RPGers that have never even looked at a module that they could run as is with a good level of background detail.

There are some exceptions to the "adventure-light" crowd.  Green Ronin does a decent job with the SIFRP modules, the Dragon Age ones are even better.  Kenzer knocked one out of the park with Frandor's Keep.  Goodman games keeps chugging along, but Necromancer Games stuff generally was better.  

Basically, I think modules will sell when their perceived worth increases.  The more information GM's can pillage from a module, the higher the perceived worth.  That's why modules don't sell today, IMO, a lot of people have no need for the style of the ones currently on the shelf.

Personally, I much prefer the Plot Points to classic adventure modules, because I don't tend to have to worry about my player's characters not being a certain "level", lacking a certain ability, or even being the wrong size of a party.  The Plot Points thus far proven to be far more flexible AND way more bang for my buck.

Its a tiered system:

1. Almost nobody creates base systems from scratch, and the vast majority of the gaming group buys(or at least has significant access to) the base system. Almost everybody buys the system as opposed to creating it.

2. More people create their own supplemental rules than they create base systems, but a lot of people prefer to buy them(or do both). Again, there's a good chance that multiple members of a group will buy rules supplements. A lot of people buy rules supplements.

3. A lot of people create their own gaming world, with varying levels of detail. Much more than people buy their own rules. A smaller percentage of the membership of the average gaming group is likely to purchase the campaign setting as well. A smaller number of people buy settings, and a lot of people create settings themselves.

4. More people create their own adventures than any of the previous three items. In addition, in all likelihood only one member of the gaming group purchased the adventure. Even less people buy adventures, and I'd guess that a majority(large) creates adventures themselves.

So system > supplements > setting > adventure

Quote from: shalvayez;373329Blah. I take personal JOY in putting as much work into my world as possible.

Same here.



And my I add that your zombie Jesus avatar is going to give me nightmares. :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: CRKrueger;373318I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The really bad TSR period churned out some really bad modules and turned people off of the medium.  The D20 glut did the same for 3e.  

I tend to agree.  With the single exception of D&D, I have never seen my gaming group buy more than one copy of ANYTHING except the core rulebook.  Well, actually, except for the Paizo APs where multiple people subscribe.

I love adventures.  I seldom want more rules and a little setting fluff goes a long way.  Though I never run them "as written," I find that adventures do the hardest work for me - stats and the like.  

Paizo makes a living at it because they do good ones.  Same with Goodman.  There was a lot of junk out there, especially from Wizards.  With the exception of Red Hand of Doom, no one has much good to say about ANY Wizards 3e adventure, and pretty much have nothing good to say about any 2e adventure without exception.  Heck, some of the 2e adventures actively scarred me...  

1e adventures, however, are legends that helped grow D&D into the behemoth it became; half of D&D's legacy is Tomb of Horrors, Temple of Elemental Evil, Scourge of the Slavelords, et al.

Even (especially?) in non-D&D milieus I like adventures because they help explain the setting - a very high concept setting really benefits from adventures to help show how things are supposed to play.

I think a lot of games have been built on good adventures!  Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia are two games where the vast majority of supplements are adventures.

There is a real need for GOOD 4e modules.  The only one I have seen thus far worthy of being called GOOD is War of the Burning Sky.  I have heard some Goodman ones are up there, but I have not seen them.  The WOTC ones? They stink.

I think there is opportunity there for 3rd party publishers to fill that need.  For whatever reason, they are not taking advantage of the opening.

Quote from: Mistwell;373462I think there is opportunity there for 3rd party publishers to fill that need.  For whatever reason, they are not taking advantage of the opening.

I though it was because the GSL requires third-party publishers to deliver their first-born children to Whizbros for the office Carcosa LARP. Or something like that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;373326Before you even consider worth, etc - only 1 person in any given group needs to buy it.

That's true of any decent game or supplement though.

While its a very small sample, I find it interesting that of all the free material I have up for download, the adventures tend towards the lowest download figures. (Apart from one anomaly, which the second most read file.)

I am not sure its not due to the fact that scenarios seem the most artificial material that is produced. I have never seen GM sit down and write a scenario of their own to run as an actual session, only to present to a wider audience.

I think it may well be that the accepted formatting of a scenario for publication, has actually become an artform with no actual relation to the game its made for.

Quote from: jadrax;373473I am not sure its not due to the fact that scenarios seem the most artificial material that is produced. I have never seen GM sit down and write a scenario of their own to run as an actual session, only to present to a wider audience.

I think it may well be that the accepted formatting of a scenario for publication, has actually become an artform with no actual relation to the game its made for.

All of my modules so far were played as part of my campaign before ever thinking of publishing them. I have a couple of modules on the horizon that were conceived as products from the get-go, but most of what I have on the schedule are things that were done in my home campaign.

The reason I personally just don't buy many modules (unless, as other people have mentioned, I can pillage them for ideas or setting details easily) is that they often make a whole heap of assumptions about my campaign. They assume the party has a particular composition, they assume the party is this sort of team who are interested in this particular kind of plot hook, they often assume the party is going to react in a particular way... I often find I have to do so much work making the module fit the campaign that I may as well have just written my own adventure from scratch.

Quote from: JimLotFP;373474All of my modules so far were played as part of my campaign before ever thinking of publishing them. I have a couple of modules on the horizon that were conceived as products from the get-go, but most of what I have on the schedule are things that were done in my home campaign.

Normally, so are mine. But the write up I do for mass consumption often have very little in common with the notes I actually ran it from. Are you saying that the presentation of the modules you write matches the notes you used to actually run it?

Quote from: jadrax;373478Normally, so are mine. But the write up I do for mass consumption often have very little in common with the notes I actually ran it from. Are you saying that the presentation of the modules you write matches the notes you used to actually run it?

Of course not. I don't use complete sentences, or need to explain what anything means to myself, for my home notes. And of course when publishing something I get to correct all the conceptual fuckups made during the original run.

I do consider the published versions of my adventures far superior to what I originally ran. Legible, better organized, clearer by far, very detailed. It's that detail that I feel is the value of published adventures (I'm not a One Page Dungeon user, for example - those look like my home notes!).

I'm not sure there is really useful data one way or another on module sales.

I think the notion that "modules don't sell" came largely from TSR/WotC staff with 2e experience, wherein 2e adventures sold very poorly. (But keep in mind, 2e adventures for whatever reason really sucked, too.) I think Ryan Dancey at one point said that the OGL was intended to allow 3rd parties to produce supporting material for D&D that was unprofitable for WotC to make -- and I think he singled out adventures as an example product.

From here the "adventures don't sell" meme spread. But it's also important to note that by the middle of the 3e era (say, around 2004) most of the big d20 companies were reversing themselves and starting to produce modules because clearly, based on the experience of Necromancer and Goodman and maybe most importantly, Paizo, adventures were selling. Green Ronin and WotC both jumped into the market at that point.

I think, based on the sustained success of Paizo, it's difficult to make a blanket statement that "adventures don't sell."

Quote from: JimLotFP;373479Of course not. I don't use complete sentences, or need to explain what anything means to myself, for my home notes. And of course when publishing something I get to correct all the conceptual fuckups made during the original run.

Well yes, honestly all of that stuff should have gone without saying.

QuoteI do consider the published versions of my adventures far superior to what I originally ran. Legible, better organized, clearer by far, very detailed. It's that detail that I feel is the value of published adventures (I'm not a One Page Dungeon user, for example - those look like my home notes!).

Which I think gets to the heart of the possible disconnect, your clearly stating your looking for something in a published scenario (detail) which you don't actually use seem to use when you run it yourself? I know when the stuff I write, most of teh detail is based on stuff i made up on the fly when running it.

Quote from: jadrax;373481Which I think gets to the heart of the possible disconnect, your clearly stating your looking for something in a published scenario (detail) which you don't actually use seem to use when you run it yourself? I know when the stuff I write, most of teh detail is based on stuff i made up on the fly when running it.

Because I don't need it in my own adventures. When I make a room and mark it "kitchen," I know exactly what I mean. I don't know what someone else means if they just write "kitchen," and for me the greater point of using someone else's adventure is to get away from my own assumptions when running a game.

Quote from: JimLotFP;373482Because I don't need it in my own adventures. When I make a room and mark it "kitchen," I know exactly what I mean. I don't know what someone else means if they just write "kitchen," and for me the greater point of using someone else's adventure is to get away from my own assumptions when running a game.

So how much do you run other people's material? And how much do you run them as written?

Quote from: jadrax;373483So how much do you run other people's material? And how much do you run them as written?

Ask me again after the summer. Out here in Finland it's difficult to get new adventures at a decent price (I don't buy PDFs). I run what I have, but I have a number of modules on the way to me. Most of them are pegged for re-sale, but my Sunday campaign is just now moving into that mid-level area where I can use a lot of them...

(when I lived in Vaasa I used a lot of modules, but my current groups are old-TSR savvy so I can't use the classics)

I make it a point to run them close to 100% as written. I'll change setting and background material to match my campaign, and adjust magical treasure to be appropriate, but I really try to keep everything else as the author intended.

Quote from: jadrax;373478Normally, so are mine. But the write up I do for mass consumption often have very little in common with the notes I actually ran it from. Are you saying that the presentation of the modules you write matches the notes you used to actually run it?

This is absurd, like Jim said there is a world of difference between notes for yourself and notes written to instruct someone else. An adventure should be written from the standpoint of you explaining the module to another GM.

It is a different type of writing then the one you do for yourself. And it is the same situation that people face all the time in technical areas whether it is staging a play, explaining a piece of machinery you built or in this case an adventure module to be run for an RPG.

Quote from: Garnfellow;373480I'm not sure there is really useful data one way or another on module sales.

I think the notion that "modules don't sell" came largely from TSR/WotC staff with 2e experience, wherein 2e adventures sold very poorly. (But keep in mind, 2e adventures for whatever reason really sucked, too.) I think Ryan Dancey at one point said that the OGL was intended to allow 3rd parties to produce supporting material for D&D that was unprofitable for WotC to make -- and I think he singled out adventures as an example product.

From here the "adventures don't sell" meme spread. But it's also important to note that by the middle of the 3e era (say, around 2004) most of the big d20 companies were reversing themselves and starting to produce modules because clearly, based on the experience of Necromancer and Goodman and maybe most importantly, Paizo, adventures were selling. Green Ronin and WotC both jumped into the market at that point.

I think, based on the sustained success of Paizo, it's difficult to make a blanket statement that "adventures don't sell."

I have nothing to do with TSR or WotC, or D20, or 4e, or any of that. I speak from my own sales experience over eight years of running my own publishing company. CasualOblivion had it exactly right - system > supplements > setting > adventure.  Adventures don't sell.

-clash

Quote from: estar;373490This is absurd, like Jim said there is a world of difference between notes for yourself and notes written to instruct someone else. An adventure should be written from the standpoint of you explaining the module to another GM.

It is a different type of writing then the one you do for yourself. And it is the same situation that people face all the time in technical areas whether it is staging a play, explaining a piece of machinery you built or in this case an adventure module to be run for an RPG.

So your saying its absurd and then agreeing with me?

Quote from: Garnfellow;373480I think, based on the sustained success of Paizo, it's difficult to make a blanket statement that "adventures don't sell."

That's a good point. There needs to be context. Perhaps "adventures don't sell nearly as well as core rulebooks and other rules-based supplements."

Seanchai

Quote from: flyingmice;373491I have nothing to do with TSR or WotC, or D20, or 4e, or any of that. I speak from my own sales experience over eight years of running my own publishing company. CasualOblivion had it exactly right - system > supplements > setting > adventure.  Adventures don't sell.

-clash

I think for some publishers, for some systems, during some periods, adventures probably didn't and don't sell. But my point is that the generalization isn't useful.

In the d20 ecology at this moment, I am not certain that setting > adventure. In fact, right now I would not be so sure that supplement > adventure.

Quote from: Garnfellow;373498I think for some publishers, for some systems, during some periods, adventures probably didn't and don't sell. But my point is that the generalization isn't useful.

In the d20 ecology at this moment, I am not certain that setting > adventure. In fact, right now I would not be so sure that supplement > adventure.

I think it's more that for some publishers, for some systems, during some periods, adventures *do* sell. And by "some systems" I really mean D&D+Clones. I do *not* see adventures selling well outside of that complex of systems. Most publishers treat them as loss leaders or give them away.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;373491I have nothing to do with TSR or WotC, or D20, or 4e, or any of that. I speak from my own sales experience over eight years of running my own publishing company. CasualOblivion had it exactly right - system > supplements > setting > adventure.  Adventures don't sell.

-clash

Do you think this had to do with genre and some genres being crowded with modules while others aren't? I can't say we've had stellar success with our first module, but it sold about as well as our systems did (however this is just one module and I realize it could be fluke). But we also have a very specific type of module (counter terrorism), and my thought was there aren't too many resources out there for the GM running this sort of campaign, so maybe they are more likely to buy the module.

On thing right off the bat about modules you realize though is, pretty much just the GMs are buying them (with a few exceptions I am sure), which could account for the overall lower sales. As a GM I always loved modules, but you can see how there is a good reason they would sell less than other products.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;373502Do you think this had to do with genre and some genres being crowded with modules while others aren't? I can't say we've had stellar success with our first module, but it sold about as well as our systems did (however this is just one module and I realize it could be fluke). But we also have a very specific type of module (counter terrorism), and my thought was there aren't too many resources out there for the GM running this sort of campaign, so maybe they are more likely to buy the module.

On thing right off the bat about modules you realize though is, pretty much just the GMs are buying them (with a few exceptions I am sure), which could account for the overall lower sales. As a GM I always loved modules, but you can see how there is a good reason they would sell less than other products.

I thnk you may be right, Brendan. As a customer of yours, which I am BTW, I would be looking at any adventure you publish as a supplement rather than as an actual adventure, something I could use to plunder for resources. I think the  "module" mindset is strongest among older D&D gamers - by which I mean gamers who run older editions/clones, not the gamers being older - and radiating out from there. It's weakest in the SF and modern-day genres, and strongest in the fantasy genre, with some interest in the Horror genre. The only adventure of mine which ever sold enough to pay for itself was for my Horror line.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;373506I thnk you may be right, Brendan. As a customer of yours, which I am BTW, I would be looking at any adventure you publish as a supplement rather than as an actual adventure, something I could use to plunder for resources. I think the  "module" mindset is strongest among older D&D gamers - by which I mean gamers who run older editions/clones, not the gamers being older - and radiating out from there. It's weakest in the SF and modern-day genres, and strongest in the fantasy genre, with some interest in the Horror genre. The only adventure of mine which ever sold enough to pay for itself was for my Horror line.

-clash

Thanks for the support. Same here.

I agree with the supplement thing. I always bought modules to get a blue print of how people run adventures and for the maps.

Quote from: The Shaman;373466I though it was because the GSL requires third-party publishers to deliver their first-born children to Whizbros for the office Carcosa LARP. Or something like that.

It really doesn't.  The GSL is pretty damn reasonable as far as licensing agreements go.  People got all butt-hurt because of the clause that says it can be changed by WOTC at any time.  But realistically, they have not touched it in a long time, have no incentive to touch it now, and wouldn't mess with it just for an adventure module.

I mean think about it.  A HUGE portion of the sales for a module is in the first few months of publication.  What is the realistic risk of them not just changing the GSL, but changing it in a way that material damages your company, in that first few months? The answer is "infinitesimally small".  

Thousands and thousands of companies every day operate under licensing agreements that allow the licensor to alter the agreement, and the instances of it causing harm are extremely infrequent.  It's a standard clause, that D&D third party publishers are all whiny about purely because they were spoiled by the OGL and have not had to deal with the real world of licensing for a long time, if ever.

Truly, I blame Clark for this bullshit attitude.  His company didn't want to do 4e stuff after he had fought for changes (due to his partner I believe), and instead of sucking it up and admitting that to Necro's fans, he made up this bullshit legal excuse about that stupid clause.  But as an attorney he fucking well knows the clause was never going to be used, and even if it were used the odds were WAY WAY WAY against it impacting an existing product of his.  Had he gone ahead with the planned 4e modules, they would have been out long ago, and his sales run would also have been out or nearly out long ago as well, with no harm from the GSL and a lot of profit to him.

But no, instead he whined about the GSL being changeable by WOTC, which is something he couldn't agree to, despite him probably drafting dozens of similar agreements for non-RPG companies without blinking an eye in his law practice.  Such a crock of shit.

Quote from: Mistwell;373589Truly, I blame Clark for this bullshit attitude.  His company didn't want to do 4e stuff after he had fought for changes (due to his partner I believe), and instead of sucking it up and admitting that to Necro's fans, he made up this bullshit legal excuse about that stupid clause.  But as an attorney he fucking well knows the clause was never going to be used, and even if it were used the odds were WAY WAY WAY against it impacting an existing product of his.  Had he gone ahead with the planned 4e modules, they would have been out long ago, and his sales run would also have been out or nearly out long ago as well, with no harm from the GSL and a lot of profit to him.

But no, instead he whined about the GSL being changeable by WOTC, which is something he couldn't agree to, despite him probably drafting dozens of similar agreements for non-RPG companies without blinking an eye in his law practice.  Such a crock of shit.

Well, tell us how you really feel. :)

Quote from: ICFTI;373608Well, tell us how you really feel. :)

Yeah, Clark has a tendency to really tick me off when it comes to legal matters.  We disagree often.  He's very conservative when it comes to interpreting most clauses of contracts and licenses, and it strikes me as highly unrealistic from a business law perspective.  

You know, the kind of guy you hire to negotiate the best agreement for you, and he goes and works very hard to get an air tight indemnification clause while ignoring the cost and term of use and other business issues in the agreement.  Nobody in the real world much gives a shit about indemnification clauses (if they every get used, which is very rare, things have already gone to hell in a hand basket and be ignored anyway) but some attorney's focus everything on them because it's what they know and they don't really know the business issues involved very well.

Quote from: Mistwell;373589...

Thousands and thousands of companies every day operate under licensing agreements that allow the licensor to alter the agreement, and the instances of it causing harm are extremely infrequent.  It's a standard clause, that D&D third party publishers are all whiny about purely because they were spoiled by the OGL and have not had to deal with the real world of licensing for a long time, if ever.

...

But no, instead he whined about the GSL being changeable by WOTC, which is something he couldn't agree to, despite him probably drafting dozens of similar agreements for non-RPG companies without blinking an eye in his law practice.  Such a crock of shit.

Really?  I mean really?  In what industry is this standard?  If by "change at any time" you mean cancel on x days notice, maybe.  

What's an agreement mean if one party can unilaterally change it at any time?  

Are you saying the GSL and it's ilk are in essence agreements not to sue if you follow certain rules but those rules could change at any time?  So count yourself lucky publisher.

Quote from: shalvayez;373329Blah. I take personal JOY in putting as much work into my world as possible.

Me too. I do buy a lot of modules though, and love to pillage them for particular locales, encounters, this or that group or faction... whatever the case may be. Putting a lot of pride in your work as a world-builder doesn't necessarily mean rejecting modules and campaign supplements. At least for me.

Quote from: Mistwell;373589It really doesn't.  The GSL is pretty damn reasonable as far as licensing agreements go.  People got all butt-hurt (...)

OK. Stopping reading right there. It's all about the OGL, Mark. Some people supported the OGL, and the very idea of open gaming. Some people still do, and to them, the GSL was like a slap in the face. It was the very company that launched the idea of open gaming that suddenly went "Know what? Nevermind."

They tried to sell the GSL as a more "reasonable" OGL to them, but it really isn't an OGL at all. It's a licensing contract. Not open gaming. And that's why people are pissed, still.

Well that, and no responsible company would surrender its business activity to another company with such a capricious (that's being nice) track record as WotC's, which seems to listen more to what Hasbro's shareholders want in terms of bottom-line than anything else.

That's it.

Quote from: JimLotFP;373482for me the greater point of using someone else's adventure is to get away from my own assumptions when running a game.

That sort of thing is what will really draw me to a published adventure... if it's somehow off the norm... if it adds a new direction to the mainstream of the game or just seems like a cool idea.
Sometimes a published adventure is just good to have as a starting point to riff off of and build my own... vs. starting off tabula rasa. The end result might not bear any resemblance but the original is what motivated the creative differences. In that way I've found some of the cheaper 'homemade' stuff on RPGNow to be more 'inspirational' than really well-produced mega-adventures where I'm afraid to touch anything in what seems to be a finely-crafted work of art.

Also, published adventures are just more useful for certain games. It's more work to hash out a complex mystery for Call of Cthulhu so it's nice to have a published one to use, at least as a skeleton of a plot.
The adventure books for The Whispering Vault were particularly useful to me because they helped to showcase variations on what at first seemed to be a pretty rigid formula for game sessions... they helped 'break the mold' so to speak.

Quote from: Mistwell;373589It really doesn't.  The GSL is pretty damn reasonable as far as licensing agreements go.  People got all butt-hurt because of the clause that says it can be changed by WOTC at any time.  But realistically, they have not touched it in a long time, have no incentive to touch it now, and wouldn't mess with it just for an adventure module.

I mean think about it.  A HUGE portion of the sales for a module is in the first few months of publication.  What is the realistic risk of them not just changing the GSL, but changing it in a way that material damages your company, in that first few months? The answer is "infinitesimally small".  

Thousands and thousands of companies every day operate under licensing agreements that allow the licensor to alter the agreement, and the instances of it causing harm are extremely infrequent.  It's a standard clause, that D&D third party publishers are all whiny about purely because they were spoiled by the OGL and have not had to deal with the real world of licensing for a long time, if ever.

Truly, I blame Clark for this bullshit attitude.  His company didn't want to do 4e stuff after he had fought for changes (due to his partner I believe), and instead of sucking it up and admitting that to Necro's fans, he made up this bullshit legal excuse about that stupid clause.  But as an attorney he fucking well knows the clause was never going to be used, and even if it were used the odds were WAY WAY WAY against it impacting an existing product of his.  Had he gone ahead with the planned 4e modules, they would have been out long ago, and his sales run would also have been out or nearly out long ago as well, with no harm from the GSL and a lot of profit to him.

But no, instead he whined about the GSL being changeable by WOTC, which is something he couldn't agree to, despite him probably drafting dozens of similar agreements for non-RPG companies without blinking an eye in his law practice.  Such a crock of shit.

The GSL sucks ass.  

I was glad to see Clark finally agreed with all the stuff I said back on ENWorld, after making a big deal of publicly disagreeing with me regarding the riskiness of the GSL.

Recently, even the Paizo CEO said the GSL and the clauses you point out above were too uncertain for her to risk her company's future on.  

To summarize...The GSL sucks ass.

At this point it doesn't matter anymore anyways.

Whether deliberate or by happenstance, the 4E 3pp market isn't exactly a happening scene and it's probably not going to change much from what it is presently.  The train has already left the station, more than a year ago.

Today, why bother anymore?

I don't think it is that they don't sell.

I think the problem is thus.  It takes as much effort to write a 64 page adventure as it does a 64 page supplement.

However only the GM really needs to buy the adventure, the players don't, so you cut your potential sales by the number of people in the group almost instantly.

Source books don't suffer from this problem as much, and many times each player will want one.

so if you are a small company, looking to make some money you can put the same amount of effort into each and one sells better than the other, then it is sort of a no brainer.

just my thoughts on it though

Welcome, Lejanus. :)

It's not just that.  alot of players do not like playing purchased modules. I am one of those , from his posts Clash is of similar mind set.

So -

i) Only a limited pool of players will buy modules at all (unlike supplements which in theory all players of the game may be interested in)
ii) Only the GM needs buy a module and there is no pollination , by which i mean when one player brings it along and uses it the other players decide they would like a copy of their own (its hte same point really but explains why supplements spread more)
iii) It takes as much effort to produce a module as it does a supplement (in fact I would say more as efforts round graphics, maps etc are more time consuming that text) but you can charge less and it has a lower take up.
iv) A module has limited reuse. If a group of players buy it and play it they will not want to play it again and so will not be willing to spend as much as they would on a supplement that will become a tool for players for the next x many games.

Quote from: jibbajibba;373740It's not just that.  alot of players do not like playing purchased modules. I am one of those , from his posts Clash is of similar mind set.

.

Is it all modules, or have you played published modules you've enjoyed?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;373748Is it all modules, or have you played published modules you've enjoyed?

I have played a handful that were bought and run by friends or lent to me. I found them internally inconsistent, illogical, too specifically tied to an existing gameworld and pretty linear. That was when I was 10 - 11 years old.

There are some exceptions. In White dwarf there was a written up modulecalled search for the golden spire or something must have bene in 83/84 I guess that was well done.

Quote from: Benoist;373653OK. Stopping reading right there. It's all about the OGL, Mark. Some people supported the OGL, and the very idea of open gaming. Some people still do, and to them, the GSL was like a slap in the face.

Er, what you just said was that it's all about the GSL, not the OGL. It is, as Mistwell said, the GSL they don't like.

Seanchai

Quote from: Joethelawyer;373656Recently, even the Paizo CEO said the GSL and the clauses you point out above were too uncertain for her to risk her company's future on.  

What a hypocrite! I'm assuming she'll be removing similar clauses from her own company's open license agreement posthaste, then...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;373757Er, what you just said was that it's all about the GSL, not the OGL. It is, as Mistwell said, the GSL they don't like.

Seanchai

Context, moron. That's what it's about. People are pissed about the GSL because it followed the OGL.
Stop misconstruing posts on purpose. That's fucking annoying.

I think casualoblivion already wrote a very good response on this. There's several "tiers" of material which you can put in a scale of people being increasingly more comfortable to homebrew that stuff . That scale goes like this (as casualoblivion said): base rules > supplement rules > campaign worlds > modules. Base rules people rather buy than write from scratch, modules not so much.

I think that's correct. But that just prompts the question why that's the case. My take on it: the aforementioned hierarchy, "base rules > supplement rules > campaign worlds > modules", coincides with a downward scale on making increasingly greater assumptions about your group's preferred style of play.

The vast diversity in play styles among people playing the various editions of D&D, e.g., are testimony to just how wide open the written rules of that system are when it comes to play style.

Modules are not like that, at all. The default expectation (not that I share it) is that you can run an adventure off the book after reading it through, without needing to redesign huge swaths thereof from scratch. With rules books there's always the idea that you can port the mechanics over into your game, your campaign, your character, and then make it your own. The result is that modules face steeper hurdles to sell well - they need to fit your preferred play style rather tightly. And that's a tall order.

Quote from: Windjammer;373775I think that's correct. But that just prompts the question why that's the case. My take on it: the aforementioned hierarchy, "base rules > supplement rules > campaign worlds > modules", coincides with a downward scale on making increasingly greater assumptions about your group's preferred style of play.

Bingo!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;373777Bingo!

-clash

Very good point indeed on WJ's part. :hatsoff:

Ya know, regardless of all the good and not so good points ya'all make about modules and adventures, I like 'em anyway. I've never looked at one as the writer trying to take my gaming style for granted or impose any kind of control or whatever. They're fun to read, fun to run and/or play in, provide great resources in the form of maps, npcs, and ideas, and they give me great inspiration for my own adventures/campaigns. They give me something to run if I'm not feeling creative. I rarely run them exactly as written, but often don't deviate too much. I'm a big fan of adventures, and I mourn the attitude of many that they have nothing to offer, and also the fact they don't make money thereby getting passed over in favor of seemingly endless splatbooks. Give the core rules of a game, and then give me adventures, scads of supplements are just annoying 90% of the time for me. I'm bummed that I'm in the minority on this :(

Quote from: Sigmund;373785Ya know, regardless of all the good and not so good points ya'all make about modules and adventures, I like 'em anyway. I've never looked at one as the writer trying to take my gaming style for granted or impose any kind of control or whatever. They're fun to read, fun to run and/or play in, provide great resources in the form of maps, npcs, and ideas, and they give me great inspiration for my own adventures/campaigns. They give me something to run if I'm not feeling creative. I rarely run them exactly as written, but often don't deviate too much. I'm a big fan of adventures, and I mourn the attitude of many that they have nothing to offer, and also the fact they don't make money thereby getting passed over in favor of seemingly endless splatbooks. Give the core rules of a game, and then give me adventures, scads of supplements are just annoying 90% of the time for me. I'm bummed that I'm in the minority on this :(

You're in the majority, Sigmund! I'm not.

-clash

Rather than jsut asking why they don't sell, it might be better to ask which adventures sell and which don't.
 
AD&D 1e adventures sold well.  Paiza and Goodman do alright.  
 
In the first case, it was largely an empty field.  People bought almost every product and they could reasonably do so as there were so few products, relatively speaking.  But beyond that, people still seek them out.  This is partially nostalgia but they tended to have more packed in 32 pages than most current 96 page products.
 
I think there is also some sulf fulfilling prophecy.  Companies know that adventures don't sell so they delegate them to lesser designers or whip them out quickly without much care.  Then the half assed adventures don't sell.

Quote from: Windjammer;373775Modules are not like that, at all. The default expectation (not that I share it) is that you can run an adventure off the book after reading it through, without needing to redesign huge swaths thereof from scratch.

Some modules are reflective of the purpose it is serving.

For example, the 4E D&D Encounters "Undermountain" module seems to be very much a railroad and straight combat with very little to no role playing outside of skill challenges.  (I was playing D&D Encounters last night).

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4new/event/dndencounters

Very little else is expected, for the most part.

Quote from: Sigmund;373785Ya know, regardless of all the good and not so good points ya'all make about modules and adventures, I like 'em anyway. I've never looked at one as the writer trying to take my gaming style for granted or impose any kind of control or whatever. They're fun to read, fun to run and/or play in, provide great resources in the form of maps, npcs, and ideas, and they give me great inspiration for my own adventures/campaigns. They give me something to run if I'm not feeling creative. I rarely run them exactly as written, but often don't deviate too much. I'm a big fan of adventures, and I mourn the attitude of many that they have nothing to offer, and also the fact they don't make money thereby getting passed over in favor of seemingly endless splatbooks. Give the core rules of a game, and then give me adventures, scads of supplements are just annoying 90% of the time for me. I'm bummed that I'm in the minority on this :(

I am with you. Back in the 90s, I got so much inspiration for different encounters, plot lines, npcs reading all the ravenloft modules (I was running a Ravenloft Campaign). I think I only ever tried to run one of them the whole way through, but the material in them was helpful, and adventures written out from beginning to end helped me develop my own style.

Quote from: Benoist;373769Stop misconstruing posts on purpose.

I'm not. You said one thing and then demonstrated it was just the opposite. People don't have a problem with the OGL. People might have a problem with the GSL because of past experiences, but their problem is still firmly with the GSL. In other words, Mistwell is correct.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;374021I'm not.

Either you are misconstruing posts on purpose, or you're a fucking retard.
I did you a favor and chose to believe the former. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Benoist;374023Either you are misconstruing posts on purpose, or you're a fucking retard.

It's neither. As I said, you indicated that it was the OGL that was the problem: "It's all about the OGL, Mark." Clearly, it isn't.

For example, there's this clause: "We can terminate this License at any time, at our sole discretion.

"If we terminate the License due to breach, you have to immediately stop selling products that use the Compatibility Logo and you must destroy all of your inventory of those products (including all marketing material). You may not make any more products that use the Compatibility Logo. You must immediately suspend any advertisements and any web content promoting products that use the Compatibility Logo. If there are any costs associated with any of this, the responsibility for paying them is exclusively yours.

"If we terminate the License for any reason other than breach, you may no longer make any new products using the Compatibility Logo, but you may continue to sell existing physical products that were compliant under this License as long as you have inventory. If you sell out of a compliant product, you must remove the Compatibility Logo from future print runs. In the case of products that do not have physical inventory, such as PDFs, you must stop selling them within 30 days of termination, but if you remove the Compatibility Logo from them, you may start selling them again."

Or this: "You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for products that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors."

Or this: "Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder."

Or this: "If you want to publish in a language other than English...In the case that the licensed translation has not yet been released, you must wait until the translation is released before you can release your product in that language."

Or this: "[We] may update this License at any time."

People don't have any problem with them. They're all post OGL. They're not in an uproar about them. Had I not mentioned something about it yesterday, you probably couldn't even tell me who the licensor is.

The idea that people have a problem with the GSL because of the OGL is demonstrably false. You can retreat back into your old stand by of ad hominems, but calling me a retard over and over again doesn't make you correct.

Seanchai

Seanchai, here's my understanding of Benoist on this.
 
It's not just the GSL, it's the fact that it was preceded by the OGL.  If the GSL came out with no history, people might jump on thinking how they could now make things equivalent to what Judges Guild and a few others did without paying a licensing fee. But it's a step down from OGL and things like Mutants & Masterminds are now clearly out of the question.
 
The GSL is still better than what most rpg companies offer but it's a negative step compared to OGL.

Quote from: Nicephorus;374044Seanchai, here's my understanding of Benoist on this.
 
It's not just the GSL, it's the fact that it was preceded by the OGL.  If the GSL came out with no history, people might jump on thinking how they could now make things equivalent to what Judges Guild and a few others did without paying a licensing fee. But it's a step down from OGL and things like Mutants & Masterminds are now clearly out of the question.
 
The GSL is still better than what most rpg companies offer but it's a negative step compared to OGL.

Yes. Thank you.

Quote from: Nicephorus;374044The GSL is still better than what most rpg companies offer but it's a negative step compared to OGL.

The second version of the GSL is OK, not as great as the OGL but OK. The first version sucked big time with it's branding requirement. Basically if you had a product line like Dungeons Crawl Classics you could not have OGL and GSL offering even if they were completely different products. Hence why the d20 PDFs were pulled by early adopters. With the GSL Version 2 this was removed and the license while not being a great as the OGL was still a OK deal. Now the problem is whether people are buying third party 4e stuff or has the bottom fallen out.

Version 1 caused a huge stink and left a lingering odor that tainted people's perception of Version 2. This uproar over the branding would occurred regardless if the OGL existed or not.  If the GSL was a private agreement no game company would ever agree to such requirements. Perhaps no dual stats products but not shut down their previous releases in the same brand.

Quote from: estar;374053The second version of the GSL is OK, not as great as the OGL but OK. The first version sucked big time with it's branding requirement. Basically if you had a product line like Dungeons Crawl Classics you could not have OGL and GSL offering even if they were completely different products. Hence why the d20 PDFs were pulled by early adopters. With the GSL Version 2 this was removed and the license while not being a great as the OGL was still a OK deal. Now the problem is whether people are buying third party 4e stuff or has the bottom fallen out.

Version 1 caused a huge stink and left a lingering odor that tainted people's perception of Version 2. This uproar over the branding would occurred regardless if the OGL existed or not.  If the GSL was a private agreement no game company would ever agree to such requirements. Perhaps no dual stats products but not shut down their previous releases in the same brand.

That too. Yes.

Quote from: estar;374053Now the problem is whether people are buying third party 4e stuff or has the bottom fallen out.

With Goodman Games doing their own Dungeon Crawl Classic rpg, wonder how much longer they will stay in the 4E 3pp market.

Mongoose already left the 4E market awhile ago.  Wonder how much longer Expeditious Retreat Press will still be around in the 4E 3pp market.

Quote from: ggroy;374085With Goodman Games doing their own Dungeon Crawl Classic rpg, wonder how much longer they will stay in the 4E 3pp market.

Mongoose already left the 4E awhile ago.  Wonder how much longer Expeditious Retreat Press will still be around in the 4E 3pp market.

Are they the last major one?

Quote from: Joethelawyer;374127Are they the last major one?

No idea.  I haven't followed the pdf-only 4E 3pp companies that closely.

Redbrick put their 4E "Age of Legend" project on hiatus, and removed it from their web site.  It was suppose to be a conversion of the Earthdawn setting to the 4E D&D ruleset.

http://www.redbrick-limited.com/cms/index.php?categoryid=1

(Scroll down to March 19, 2010).

Quote from: Xanther;373649Really?  I mean really?  In what industry is this standard?  If by "change at any time" you mean cancel on x days notice, maybe.  

What's an agreement mean if one party can unilaterally change it at any time?  

Almost ANY free license works that way.

Take this one for example that we are typing on right now, vBulletin.  Right from their TOU: "We may modify these Terms from time to time and such modification will be effective upon posting on this Site. You agree to be bound to any changes to these Terms when you use this Site after any such modification is posted. It is important that you review these Terms regularly to ensure you are updated as to any changes made."

When you get a FREE license, usually it comes with a string attached that the licensor can change it at any time without notice.

Quote from: Benoist;373653OK. Stopping reading right there. It's all about the OGL, Mark. Some people supported the OGL, and the very idea of open gaming. Some people still do, and to them, the GSL was like a slap in the face. It was the very company that launched the idea of open gaming that suddenly went "Know what? Nevermind."

Uh, but we are not talking about the OGL, and that was not a reason given by Clark, which is what I was talking about.

QuoteThey tried to sell the GSL as a more "reasonable" OGL to them, but it really isn't an OGL at all. It's a licensing contract. Not open gaming. And that's why people are pissed, still.

That's fine.  Why do you think this is a response to what I wrote?

QuoteWell that, and no responsible company would surrender its business activity to another company with such a capricious (that's being nice) track record as WotC's, which seems to listen more to what Hasbro's shareholders want in terms of bottom-line than anything else.

That's it.

Yeah that part I think is a little nutty.  How many times have free licenses you use been changed without you even noticing? Probably hundreds.  The idea that a free license can be changed by the licensor is standard, and it has happened to you, and only on this issue do you make it a line in the sand sort of issue.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;373656The GSL sucks ass.  

I was glad to see Clark finally agreed with all the stuff I said back on ENWorld, after making a big deal of publicly disagreeing with me regarding the riskiness of the GSL.

Recently, even the Paizo CEO said the GSL and the clauses you point out above were too uncertain for her to risk her company's future on.  

To summarize...The GSL sucks ass.

Yes, it is one clause, same one YOU have probably agreed to hundreds of times without blinking an eye, and of course the chief competition to WOTC for that type of game said the competitor's contract is bad.  And in other news, Burger King says McDonalds burgers suck.

What would be amusing is if WotC goes back to the old OGL for 5E D&D, and nobody produces anything for it.  :duh:

Quote from: Mistwell;374137Almost ANY free license works that way.

Take this one for example that we are typing on right now, vBulletin.  Right from their TOU: "We may modify these Terms from time to time and such modification will be effective upon posting on this Site. You agree to be bound to any changes to these Terms when you use this Site after any such modification is posted. It is important that you review these Terms regularly to ensure you are updated as to any changes made."

When you get a FREE license, usually it comes with a string attached that the licensor can change it at any time without notice.

Then to reiterate the part of my last post, this is essentially an agreement not to sue, at least for now.  You really get nothing but that.  I still wonder what INDUSTRY this is common in.  I can see this is something consumers have to swallow, you get what you pay for afterall, but who in there right mind would build a business or invest capital in a business that relies on a license that could be changed at any time with or without notice?

Quote from: Mistwell;374137Almost ANY free license works that way.

Take this one for example that we are typing on right now, vBulletin.  Right from their TOU: "We may modify these Terms from time to time and such modification will be effective upon posting on this Site. You agree to be bound to any changes to these Terms when you use this Site after any such modification is posted. It is important that you review these Terms regularly to ensure you are updated as to any changes made."

When you get a FREE license, usually it comes with a string attached that the licensor can change it at any time without notice.

No, not true. First of all, there's a difference between a product and a service.  vbulletin isn't a free product by the way, it's commercially licensed...  A given forum using vbulletin may be free to use, and it's that forum (not the software) that has those terms of use.   A service, like a Web site you use, has terms of use that normally are subject to change without notice.  That's somewhat unavoidable.  (Note that the vbulletin.org terms of use have nothing to do with the terms of use of some random other forum that happens to be using vbulletin software.)

Products, on the other hand, are distributed under a certain license.  In most free product cases (GPL, Apache, etc.) the license that the product is distributed under is the license you use.  If the producer chooses to distribute the same product (or a later version) under a different license, you can still use the version you had under the license you had.  This is the benchmark for an open license, and why they crafted the OGL to work that same way.  The OGL isn't revocable.  

Normally, "free products" meaning software and whatnot use an open license where no one can take what you have away from you.  They may decide to move later versions to another license, where you have to make a decision whether to upgrade and be subject to the new license or not, but that's it.  

Commercial service terms of use are usually also "we can change this at will with little/no notice," it's not something specific to free services.  However smart companies at least allow some notice - Amazon Web Services, for example, has 60-day change clauses in its standard contract, for the exact same reason of "would you really use it if it could change the next day?"  

Most commercial software suppliers don't try to limit their licenses beyond the obvious "you bought this for X servers/users/CPUs/whatnot", when you buy the software you own it and if you stick to your current version, you can use it forever.  Some companies, driven mad by profit motive, try to license their software to you for a limited time, but that's usually a removable layer of greed (at our company we don't accept that, so we wave money at them, then sic the lawyers on them, and the clause goes away).

Anyway, short form is don't confuse terms of use with a license and free licenses are usually not alterable (with or without notice).

Quote from: Nicephorus;374044It's not just the GSL, it's the fact that it was preceded by the OGL.

Which does not make it "all about the OGL." I understood that he felt people were upset with the GSL because of their experiences with the OGL, but, as I said, that doesn't make it "all about the OGL." It maybe makes it a little about the OGL, but a whole lot about the GSL.

Regardless, if it really were about past experiences with the OGL, folks would have something to say about a license that restricts them in ways the OGL did not. However, they're stone cold silent about Paizo's license, which also restricts you from doing whatever you'd like with their IP, has termination clauses, etc..

In short, if there are two similar licenses in the same post OGL era and people are only upset about it, it's not the licenses themselves that are causing the upset.

Seanchai