buzz
Adventurer
What I was referring to was SKR's statement a while back that crunchy books sell better than fluffy books. I don't know that anyone at WotC claimed that was because they were more useful. I think the general assumption is that this is true. E.g., PHB2 is a lot easier for me or my players to integrate into an Eberron campaign than a book all about Cormyr.Faraer said:If I'm running a campaign in a published setting, nothing is more useful to me than information about that setting (including adventures set there), despite the one-time insistence of certain Wizards people that only 'crunch' is 'useful'.
My guess is that WotC still buys into this, as the crunch books outnumber the fluff books by a healthy margin, and the Amazon bestseller data (FWIW) seems to support the idea that they sell better than anything else. It matches my group's behavior as well.
I don't know if there's any evidence that there is a vast, untapped consumer base out there that would be RPG'ing if only, e.g., D&D didn't have so many supplements. (I think that's what you're saying; please correct me otherwise.) If this were true, the charred corpses of all the "lite" RPGs that litter the industry landscape would have attracted them long ago.Faraer said:These people being the majority of those who would enjoy RPGing...
(I also think that, even were this true, it's subject matter, not perceived page-count, that puts people off more than anything.)
Well, they did it for Eberron. Assuming that's something people want and it sells well, they'll probably do it again.Faraer said:On the other hand, Wizards could, though for whatever reason neither they or TSR ever tried, publish a real player's guide...