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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2732200" data-attributes="member: 26473">I mentioned Magic of Incarnum simply because I was reading the thread about it before I read this one, so it was foremost in my mind.What I don't like about MoI, the reason I call it "dreck," is that it's neither different nor risky. It's just recycled concepts from SWRPG given a fantasy veneer. As I said, I find it bland and rote.As Mark Twain wrote, "Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race."I'm glad you found your investment worthwhile - for me it's a pass.First buzz, nothing that you or I or (with a few exceptions) anyone else says on the boards should be taken "proof" of anything. They are opinions regarding the topic, based on our respective experiences. There is no argument to be won here or solution to suss out, just the sharing of differing ideas about what we enjoy in gaming and why.Eberron, IMHO, is the least risky move that WotC could make on a new setting - it is a mish-mash of "pop fantasy" elements designed to capture as many people as possible by appealing to whatever is deemed hip in the genre at the moment. I see it as the natural evolution of a gaming style that originated with Myst. That doesn't make it 'bad' - in fact, I don't think Eberron is a poorly-done setting at all, though it holds no appeal for me, but I do think that once again it was a risk-avoidance strategy, a grab-bag setting so that people could play lycanthropes and droids and fly around in zeppelins while taking advantage of a wealth of anachronisms.Ghostwalk was a risky choice. Midnight, had it come from WotC, would be a risky choice. Eberron was about the safest choice that WotC could make.buzz, first, I'm not making blanket assessments about the objective quality of the books - I'm offering my subjective opinion of the quality of WotC's product, just like you. My "qualifications" are the same as yours: I'm an informed consumer. and if you go back to my post, you'll see that I already answered your question: I read the books, read reviews, and compare different approaches. I don't have to like something or play it to appreciate the fact that it's innovative or not: I'm not interested in playing Blue Rose or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, but I think they're both excellent games mechanically and thematically. I don't have to 'like' something in order to appraise it's relative merits.Without access to the planning notes, marketing research, and sale figures generated by Wizards of the Coast, all any of us can do is speculate as to their decision-making. However, all of us see what's released and when, can look at the products and develop informed opinions, and are entitled to have an opinion on the end result.]No one has said anything of the kind, and as for me I'll thank you to not ascribe quotes to me that I didn't write.To make sure that my point isn't lost here, I'll restate it: I think WotC is the undisputed leader in marketing, production values, and perhaps business strategy, but I think that most of their products are dull and uninspired, that more innovative game design happens elsewhere.My feeling is that the OGL was intended for one purpose: to sell Player's Handbooks.The fact that third-party publishers did something different with it (there's innovation again) has produced comments from WotC about "splitting the market" and how it's bad for gaming. Looking over my gaming books, as a consumer I benefit directly from the market splitting, since none of the games I play require the PHB.This is a really interesting point, WizarDru. I agree with much of what you're saying -the only place I'm inclined to disagree is with respect to the fact that the OGL is working out as planned.To be fair, I am anything but an expert on the OGL, but I've heard rumblings several times to the effect that the third-party publishers didn't "play along" as planned, that instead of taking on the peripheral parts of the games that weren't profitable enough for WotC to invest in, the third-party publishers came straight at WotC's core supplements instead, so much so that the market was glutted and a thinning of the herd was necessary. If I was a publisher, I know that would've been my strategy as well - why settle for being a bottom-feeder when there's all those juicy fish floating around?I don't know yet, but I'm thinking about it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Excellent post, WizarDru.</blockquote>

Verification