Unpopular opinions go here

[billd91]

Making things that people want and are willing to buy is kind of the idea. You might say it's their whole plan. Now if you're willing to buy stuff in Box A, and I'm willing to buy the stuff in Box B, Wizards of the Coast would be wise to keep both boxes full. So again,

Well... to an extent. That only works if the people interested in these boxes are numerous enough to sustain the costs required to fill both boxes. Something WotC observed that TSR didn't really learn back in the 2e days.

 

[Umbran]

Did someone specific ignore your gaming needs for thirty years, such that no one's ever made a product you liked?

And frankly it’s a bit rich when someone who has made it their life mission to take big steaming dumps on every single thing ...

Mod Note:
Both of you, stop making it personal, or leave the discussion, please and thanks.

And Hussar - please tone down the rhetoric.

 

[CleverNickName]

Well... to an extent. That only works if the people interested in these boxes are numerous enough to sustain the costs required to fill both boxes. Something WotC observed that TSR didn't really learn back in the 2e days.

That's fair. From the looks of their sales trends over the release of 5th Edition D&D, I'd say they're doing a pretty good job of balancing the production costs with market interest.

It's not 50/50, of course. Nor is it "either-or."

If Box A starts to get empty every week, but Box B only gets empty every six months, the answer isn't "put the same resources into both boxes," that will just end up flooding Box B (a lesson that TSR Inc. learned the hard way). The answer isn't "get rid of one of the boxes," either...that will just alienate half your customer base, and nobody wants a repeat of 2008. The answer is "put most of our resources into keeping Box A full, and just top off Box B occasionally as needed." As long as both boxes are kept full, the market will be satisfied.

 

[Gradine]

Final Fantasy II may be the worst NES Final Fantasy, but since the GBA and future remasters it has become the best of the NES Final Fantasies

 

[payn]

Final Fantasy II may be the worst NES Final Fantasy, but since the GBA and future remasters it has become the best of the NES Final Fantasies

Are talking how U.S. numbered them or Japanese? So confusing.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes. They did.

And frankly it’s a bit rich when someone who has made it their life mission to take big steaming dumps on every single thing that isn’t 100% targeted at them to complain about me being happy because I’m finally the one being targeted.

I got into dnd when everything was presented through modules. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, The Known World. The idea of setting guides was still years away.

Then, about the time of 2e, modules went away. And it was nothing but and endless avalanche of setting books. On and on. Then 3e came and there was a tiny glimmer of change. The Adventure Path matured. But the market was still massively dominated by endless fictional history texts.

Finally, after about 25 years, 5e rolls along and rolls back the clock. Settings are presented in adventures again. Functional, practical books that actually get used at the table instead of gathering dust on the shelf.

And it proves to be spectacularly popular. Far, far more popular than fictional history books ever were.

And you want me to say that I’m not happy that I’m finally getting what I want? Bugger that. You got tens of thousands of pages of products specifically for you. I’m finally getting stuff I want.

I could not care less that you aren’t. I really couldn’t. Because you folks certainly couldn’t give a rat’s petoot when it was the other way around.

But see, if all you care about is running modules/adventure paths, having your settings be described in those modules and adventure paths is great.

But if for those of us who prefer to actually make our own adventures, having the settings be described only in modules and paths is terrible.

I love Ravenloft. Loved it since 2e. But to me, Curse of Strahd was... not good. I found it dull and not at all representative of the setting, I hated the campy humor, and worse, it had no setting--just an adventure location. A large location, sure, but just a location, and not a very deep one at that. If I were just coming into D&D with 5e and didn't have that "endless avalanche" of 2e and 3x Ravenloft setting books, then all I would have is that one adventure to use to explore this setting. I couldn't run a Ravenloft campaign outside of CoS.

Well, I could, I suppose, but it would be "generic horror setting using the 5e chassis," not Ravenloft, and in that case, why play D&D--I can have generic horror in any of a hundred systems, and many of them are better suited for horror. (And yes, I've also run Ravenloft in a few other systems as well.)

And personally, I've never cared that much about Barovia in any edition. If I didn't have that "endless avalanche" which had tons of domains I do like, filled with flavors of horror that I prefer, I wouldn't have gotten into Ravenloft at all.

I feel the same way about the other 5e adventures I've read. I don't actually know that much about the Realms, and I certainly couldn't run a game of my own in that setting if all I had to go by were the adventures.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Are talking how U.S. numbered them or Japanese? So confusing.

I tend to name them after their main character or the main BBEG, way easier to remember like that.

Like, ''the one with Cecile and Kain'' or ''the one with Kefka''.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But before the gazeteers, you had the Moldvay Expert box and Isle of Dread.

And the entire B series of modules.

It was afterwards, once tsr started banging out endless setting supplements that the Gaz series appears.

And let’s not forget that if you are a lore/setting fan, it’s not like 5e has nothing. There are what, eight or ten setting/lore books - wildemount, Scag, Theros, Spelljammer, etc- for 5e. IOW about a third of the 5e books are aimed at setting/lore folks.

Well, a lot of those stick much of the lore into the adventure -- not just in the introduction, like how Oerth info is in the introduction to T1. There isn't a complete gazetteer available for Strixhaven -- you have to go through the adventure in the back to extract a bunch of the setting info. It's not a great approach for use in play. ("What was the name of that merchant again? Oh, that's right, it's somewhere in the middle of the adventure. Hold on while I look it up.")

I suspect WotC thinks they're doing everyone a favor doing it this way, but I'd much rather have the full setting information in the book and then have the adventure refer to it, rather than replace parts of it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I love Ravenloft. Loved it since 2e. But to me, Curse of Strahd was... not good. I found it dull and not at all representative of the setting, I hated the campy humor

Hold on. I6 has room after room of terrible pun names in the crypts.

You (and I) may not like that, but campy humor is 100% representative of the setting.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

But see, if all you care about is running modules/adventure paths, having your settings be described in those modules and adventure paths is great.

But if for those of us who prefer to actually make our own adventures, having the settings be described only in modules and paths is terrible.

I love Ravenloft. Loved it since 2e. But to me, Curse of Strahd was... not good. I found it dull and not at all representative of the setting, I hated the campy humor, and worse, it had no setting--just an adventure location. A large location, sure, but just a location, and not a very deep one at that. If I were just coming into D&D with 5e and didn't have that "endless avalanche" of 2e and 3x Ravenloft setting books, then all I would have is that one adventure to use to explore this setting. I couldn't run a Ravenloft campaign outside of CoS.

Well, I could, I suppose, but it would be "generic horror setting using the 5e chassis," not Ravenloft, and in that case, why play D&D--I can have generic horror in any of a hundred systems, and many of them are better suited for horror. (And yes, I've also run Ravenloft in a few other systems as well.)

And personally, I've never cared that much about Barovia in any edition. If I didn't have that "endless avalanche" which had tons of domains I do like, filled with flavors of horror that I prefer, I wouldn't have gotten into Ravenloft at all.

I feel the same way about the other 5e adventures I've read. I don't actually know that much about the Realms, and I certainly couldn't run a game of my own in that setting if all I had to go by were the adventures.

ok, i agree with you and everything, but i had to take the chance to say i really like your new PFP.