Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 9760560" data-attributes="member: 891">Yeah.If a book isn't selling, people might avoid being the one to jump in and buy it if they're worried about the ability to find a table to play at.It doesn't take much for a game to just vanish from playability.You need active discussion, you need good resources for people to find GMs and players, you need good online tools. And you need a perception that these things are all ready to go to get people to buy books. And if books stop being bought; the perception dries up.If you're a GM with 'captive players' you might go pick up the bottom ranked item on DriveThruRPG. But if you're only a player you're probably wondering if you can ever get to play a game before you go buy it.Two of the smarter moves Darrington made were1) getting a very active presence on Startplaying and2) getting a lot of other Actual Plays to run sessions of it.Three of their worst moves were1) not having official Foundry support (there is a third party kit now, but due to the license those guys are not allowed to put in the Void content which is now almost half of the character creation content),2) Not using Daggerheart for their own CR main campaign. Doing instead a 'West Marches game' which is a format Daggerheart does poorly at, thereby needing to use D&D - that helps CR, but hurts Daggerheart.3) Then running their own one-shot with a massive cast showing just how badly Daggerheart does with large groups. Note that this is not an uncommon problem. Pathfinder 2E breaks down even harder than Daggerheart does - and they've dodged that by very strongly recommending people stick to 4 players. D&D breaks down too - but gets a pass due to being the 'legacy contender'. But Daggerheart is new - so showing where it fails early on was unwise.</blockquote>

Verification