I am surprised I am still excited for Daggerheart

[aramis erak]

It's not though. Look at Blades in the Dark: successful and influential for years without support.

Wrong. It's had plenty of support, in the form of the designer and the games fans explaining how to play it.

 

[overgeeked]

It really depends. For example, Gavin Norman was basically just "Here I cleaned up B/X and made 1e D&D compatible with B/X. Enjoy." But he's not selling it as a panacea. I don't even think that Kelsey Dionne was selling Shadowdark "as the next great new thing." I think that she is incredibly self-aware of past editions of D&D and other OSR games.

You missed the bit where I mentioned 5E. I’m specifically talking about everyone repackaging domain-level play, 4E monster design, all the crunchier bits of 3X and 4E, abandoned classes, etc and selling it to new-to-RPGs-with-5E referees and players as if it were some shiny new idea or the next big thing.

I’m not talking about the OSR or NSR scenes. They’re mostly amazing and need to please keep kicking ass. Though I would like a lot more people in those scenes to be vocally anti-bigotry.

 

[Reynard]

Wrong. It's had plenty of support, in the form of the designer and the games fans explaining how to play it.

Ok, sure. If a game comes out and no one ever talks about it ever again,it probably dies. What's your point?

 

[aramis erak]

Ok, sure. If a game comes out and no one ever talks about it ever again,it probably dies. What's your point?

It had enough designer support at release to build a fanbase big enough to draw a self-repleneshing fanbase, and to draw designers to tweak on that. Every one of those also is support for the ecosystem.

BITD is a growing concern because the fanbase got the initial support from the dev to comprehend it, and then they formed a supportive community...

And its having children games using it as the core are a form of support, in that they are new subgenres with the same system.

It all boils down to people putting in time to keep it in the limelight. (the not quite pun is intentinal.) To keep it being purchased and run.

 

[Faolyn]

It's not though. Look at Blades in the Dark: successful and influential for years without support.

Without official support in the form of supplements. There are a ton of fanmade products.

 

[Reynard]

It had enough designer support at release to build a fanbase big enough to draw a self-repleneshing fanbase, and to draw designers to tweak on that. Every one of those also is support for the ecosystem.

BITD is a growing concern because the fanbase got the initial support from the dev to comprehend it, and then they formed a supportive community...

And its having children games using it as the core are a form of support, in that they are new subgenres with the same system.

It all boils down to people putting in time to keep it in the limelight. (the not quite pun is intentinal.) To keep it being purchased and run.

Without official support in the form of supplements. There are a ton of fanmade products.

All of that is true. But it does not have anything to do with the original claim that if there are no adventures for a new game, it is dead out of the gate.

 

[Aldarc]

You missed the bit where I mentioned 5E. I’m specifically talking about everyone repackaging domain-level play, 4E monster design, all the crunchier bits of 3X and 4E, abandoned classes, etc and selling it to new-to-RPGs-with-5E referees and players as if it were some shiny new idea or the next big thing.

I did miss that. In which case, you are correct.

 

[Faolyn]

All of that is true. But it does not have anything to do with the original claim that if there are no adventures for a new game, it is dead out of the gate.

Lots of people make their own adventures.

 

[Reynard]

Lots of people make their own adventures.

That's what I said, but the person who started this line of argument rejected that. They defined "support" as material published by the company that made the game. Full stop.

Other folks arguing that "support" includes fan engagement are absolutely right. But to be clear I am NOT the one arguing against that view. My only statement was that a game can be good and complete and successful in just one volume with no ongoing published support at all.

 

[The Soloist]

People should stop getting bent out of shape because we do not have the same criteria to evaluate a publisher and if we will buy a specific game. But I should know better, this is EnWorld afterall, and members defend their statements as if they are in front of a Doctorat jury.

/i'm out of this discussion.