d20 Super Heroes --- coming in July '06 from WOTC

C. Baize said:
And I don't know any publishers that don't grandstand to a degree, so I call 'em as I see 'em.
You seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of "grandstand." I don't see anything ostentatious in what Pramas is saying. Nor do I see fair grounds to doubt his claims -- just because game companies don't discuss sales numbers publicly, doesn't mean that game company personnel don't exchange information amongst themselves. And the janitor analogy is disingenuous.

And it still looks that way. If for no other reason than those gamers who think that if it comes from WotC it's automatically better/more official/whatever they have in their heads.
That's less relevant here than when discussing, say, a third-party d20 fantasy product versus a branded D&D product from Wizards. You're not even comparing a third-party standalone game to a Wizards' standalone game, i.e. D&D or d20M. In this case, you're comparing a third-party standalone game to a supplement for a game that is a lot less popular than D&D. Supplements almost always sell less than their corebooks, and I'd wager that the dropoff for d20M supplements has been typically steep if their reduced availability is any indication.

KoOS
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vigilance said:
I think 4 books a year plus several free adventures plus 3rd party supplements (which WOTC has allowed and encouraged through some generous additions to the MSRD) counts as "support".

I thought Buzz's statement (which I presume you are responding to) was "support more than they do." Not support.

And that's the entire reason I am dubious about d20 superheroes* knocking M&M off the d20 supers roost. If d20 past and d20 apoc are any indication, it will be one book and that's it. A nice little nugget, but that's about it.

* - The question still persists in my mind whether they can really get away with this title, seings how at last reconing, "Superhero" is a trademarked term.
 

Psion said:
I thought Buzz's statement (which I presume you are responding to) was "support more than they do." Not support.

Oh I realize what he was saying.

I just wonder what people expect beyond 4 books a year and free adventures, other than the full monty that D&D gets, which just isnt practical.

There is a practical limit to support and I think d20M is well supported by WOTC alone. Add in 3rd party books and there's definitely no room for complaint.

Chuck
 

Vigilance said:
I just wonder what people expect beyond 4 books a year and free adventures, other than the full monty that D&D gets, which just isnt practical.

There is a practical limit to support and I think d20M is well supported by WOTC alone. Add in 3rd party books and there's definitely no room for complaint.
I agree with this 100%; I tried to convey that in my post.

I'm often amazed at gamer expectations. Not be all nostalgic, but Champions was originally an 80pp, typewritten booklet... and here I see a 96pp supplement for a 300+pp RPG called "skimpy". :D
 
Last edited:

Vigilance said:
I just wonder what people expect beyond 4 books a year and free adventures, other than the full monty that D&D gets, which just isnt practical.

My only wish WRT d20 modern is that they about double the size of the pamphlets they are putting out now. Other than that, release everything to the MSRD, and I am sure it will get enough support for me. Just like the OGL/d20 STL were designed to do.
 

Psion said:
* - The question still persists in my mind whether they can really get away with this title, seings how at last reconing, "Superhero" is a trademarked term.

My understanding is that while "superhero" is a trademark jointly held by Marvel and DC, "super hero" is not.

When I see how many games just plain die, four official supplements per year + third party support for my very favorite game sounds pretty groovy.
 

buzz said:
I agree with this 100%; I tried to convey that in my post.

I'm often amazed at gamer expectations. Not be all nostalgic, but Champions was originally an 80pp, typewritten booklet... and here I see a 96pp supplement for a 300+pp RPG called "skimpy". :D

Yeah and the actual page count is even at issue.

The Amazon link actually says 160 pages for d20 Supers. Many have just declared that as wrong and stated it will be 96 pages.

Not being a Wiz staffer I dunno.
 

Vigilance said:
Oh I realize what he was saying.

I just wonder what people expect beyond 4 books a year and free adventures, other than the full monty that D&D gets, which just isnt practical.

There is a practical limit to support and I think d20M is well supported by WOTC alone. Add in 3rd party books and there's definitely no room for complaint.

Chuck

My concern for d20 Supers is that we'll be lucky to even get one supporting book seeing as how Past, Apocalypse, and the others haven't gotten any. In which case, even if it's an A-list set of rules I won't likely get much use from it (unless they add it to the SRD).
 

2WS-Steve said:
My concern for d20 Supers is that we'll be lucky to even get one supporting book seeing as how Past, Apocalypse, and the others haven't gotten any. In which case, even if it's an A-list set of rules I won't likely get much use from it (unless they add it to the SRD).

Well, I guess it depends on how you define support then.

If you see d20 Apolcalypse and d20 Past as seperate lines, then no, d20 Supers wont get support.

I see them all as support for d20 Modern.
 

King of Old School said:
You seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of "grandstand." I don't see anything ostentatious in what Pramas is saying. Nor do I see fair grounds to doubt his claims -- just because game companies don't discuss sales numbers publicly, doesn't mean that game company personnel don't exchange information amongst themselves. And the janitor analogy is disingenuous.

Looked boastful to me.
And the janitor analogy was not disingenuous in the least. If I were in that position, I likely WOULD use it to my advantage. Perhaps you're using an obscure meaning for disingenuous, rather than "insincere". I was being completely sincere.


King of Old School said:
That's less relevant here than when discussing, say, a third-party d20 fantasy product versus a branded D&D product from Wizards. You're not even comparing a third-party standalone game to a Wizards' standalone game, i.e. D&D or d20M. In this case, you're comparing a third-party standalone game to a supplement for a game that is a lot less popular than D&D. Supplements almost always sell less than their corebooks, and I'd wager that the dropoff for d20M supplements has been typically steep if their reduced availability is any indication.

Heh! If availability is any indication then at least in my area, D20 Super Heroes will way outsell M&M, unless the bookstores around here suddenly quit carrying D20 Modern product. I have yet to see M&M on the shelves of any store other than the little hole in the wall gaming shop that still carries 2nd Edition D&D material, and vintage board games from the '80s and early '90s. And then it was only one, and the old woman who owns the shop said it was the first one she stocked on the shelf, and it hadn't moved... I asked.

But, it's all academic, anyway. We're comparing apples and pears. D20 Super Heroes is going to be a supplement for D20 Modern. Mutants and Masterminds is only peripherally even D20. "It revolves around a D20", someone said. Well.. so did D&D 2E, and it wasn't the D20 System, either. And hey... that's cool for M&M. I'm glad it works for them. Nobody in my group liked it when they perused it at the little gaming store, either, but a lot of people do, and that's good for Pramas. I'm glad it was a success for him. It's still not the end-all be-all.

Anyway. I hope D20 Super Heroes is a smashing success and it spurs sales of my favorite D20 Modern supers game. Because I'd love to see lots more support for THAT game.
 

Remove ads

Top