Hussar
Legend
Interesting read.
Would that go a long way to explaining why every bloody fantasy book that gets released in the last twenty or thirty years has to be a trilogy?
Dancey v. Mearls?
- Thread starter qstor
- Start date
Interesting read.
Would that go a long way to explaining why every bloody fantasy book that gets released in the last twenty or thirty years has to be a trilogy?
Neonchameleon
Legend
I'm perfectly happy to embrace someone's love and adoration of 4e D&D even if I hold a polar opposite opinion, if we can both agree on one thing: James Joyce is the worst thing to have ever happened to writing in human history.
Can we agree on that one point?
I'm not sure. The Eye of Argon, Atalanta Nights, The 120 days of Sodom, and Mein Kampf all give him some tough competition.
*Thinks for a second*
No. You're right. Joyce is the worst
The rest are down to things other than just the writing.I'm not sure. The Eye of Argon, Atalanta Nights, The 120 days of Sodom, and Mein Kampf all give him some tough competition.
*Thinks for a second*
No. You're right. Joyce is the worst
Ah, the Eye of Argon... such games you can play with that story.
Just a thought but Dancey tangled with Mearls before;
mearls: A Prediction
The interesting thing is that this was in 2005 and everyone was pinning their hopes on online sales. Buuut in the book by Mongooses owner, online sales are non-existent. 60 units a month is a super platinum world wide best seller. (60 units is chump money.)
Oh and Dancey said in 2005 that the RPG industry as a whole was in a Death Spiral. I guess he just brushed off the tarnish and got the old argument out again.
(He also has some somewhat disparaging things to say about 3rd edition.)
mearls: A Prediction
The interesting thing is that this was in 2005 and everyone was pinning their hopes on online sales. Buuut in the book by Mongooses owner, online sales are non-existent. 60 units a month is a super platinum world wide best seller. (60 units is chump money.)
Oh and Dancey said in 2005 that the RPG industry as a whole was in a Death Spiral. I guess he just brushed off the tarnish and got the old argument out again.
(He also has some somewhat disparaging things to say about 3rd edition.)
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Very interesting comments. I'd not really thought about it, but I think I have to agree - the settings released for 4e have all been retreads of 2e or 3e settings, nothing novel.
I remember being excited by the intial announcements of Eberron, but every subsequent thing released for it moved it further and further from the exciting noir principles behind the original concept, and that was the main 3e 'new' setting. Were there others from WotC?
It isn't that interesting settings are impossible - the OGL made quite a range of interesting settings producable by third parties.
So why is it that there isn't effort and creative energy going into 'new' worlds any more? Some years ago I remember discussions on ENworld where fluff was decried and crunch lauded (the very names chosen reflect the bias amongst the people starting the debate!) and people said "fluff is easy, crunch is hard". It turns out that good, world-building fluff isn't actually so easy after all. Who'd have thought that genuine creativity is difficult, eh?
Cheers
Because we keep begging for retreads of our old favorites?
It isn't like RPGs are the only place where we see lots of remakes and sequels. I would expect the same dynamic to apply here - so long as we continue to buy based on an old name, we give them a disincentive to take risks.
Neonchameleon
Legend
I'll second this and be clearer. There's very little point to most new settings. They are effectively wallpaper for my games. I do not need another Fantasy Heartbreaker on the shelves. The only time I want a new setting is if the existing settings, by their nature, make it very hard to run the sort of game/story I want to run. It's hard to tell PoLand stories in the Realms or on Khorvaire for instance. As I've said above, unless they fundamentally expand what's doable with the game (as Darksun did both times) or what fits in the existing settings (PoLand, Eberron, and the Realms are very distinct) they are little more than a vanity project. Golarion, for instance, has a purpose. A kitchen sink world Paizo owns. But if WoTC tried to release Golarion, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole as it adds almost nothing. Likewise Planescape. Sigil was a good point - the rest was unnecessary. And we already have them. The only setting that constantly needs refreshing is The Great Unmapped Setting, known in its day as Greyhawk, Mystara, Forgotten Realms (boxed set), and now PoLand.
When I play or DM, the monster manuals are all relevant . (Including the Dark Sun one). All the 4e splat books may be relevant (in stark contrast to 3e). The only parts of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting that are relevant are the Swordmage and the Dark Pact Warlock. That WoTC is no longer trying to foist dozens of settings off on us as something useful is a sign of maturity.
On the other hand, they could do with writing better modules for things that aren't Encounters or drop in play...
I didn't know that the 4e PHB topped the all-Amazon sales ranking.
AngryMojo
First Post
Yup, it was up there for a while, IIRC.
Similar Threads
