Failed promises

[diaglo]

So if you know a lot of people who no only buy stuff blindly - stuff you want, no less - and are nice enough to let you borrow it and read the whole thing, that's nice. But it's not like that here, and I dare saying that it is not the norm, either.

i routinely lend out my d02 books. ones i've never even opened.

 

[Davelozzi]

Eyebeam, perhaps you could start a new thread to discuss your theory on the relationship between healthy gaming groups and the way they spend money and leave the rest of us here to continue discussing the topic at hand. Thanks.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I stand by my comment. Obviously, not everybody is going to buy in with as much frequency, but that isn't the same as being to sole purchaser. It's:

1) Not fair to the person who buys the books.

2) Increases hassle at the table.

3) reduces the amount of variety.

4) Gives too much authority and responsibility to the person buying the books.

To wit: A group where one person buys all the books is not, in my view, a healthy gaming group. Heck, I'll go farther and say that groups where one person is constantly GMing is usually somewhat problematic as well..

Wow. That is so far off base it's hilarious.

1. I've already discussed the arrangement I have with my group, so I won't go into it again. Needless to say, I don't feel like I'm being treated unfairly.

2. The only time there's hassle at the table is when we're trying out a new game for the first time. Then there's usually one (sometimes two) books at the table being passed around while the players make their first character, after that, it's not a problem.

3. That's just crazy. On any give gaming night we can play D&D, Star Wars, D20 Modern, Babylon 5, WHFRP, RIFTS, M&M, or any of the myriad of boardgames in the group's possession. Even with me running 95% of the games, I have so much material at my disposal that the group never knows what they are going to face. No variety? Hardly.

4. I don't see how the DM has too much authority by buying most of the books. The way I see, a good DM sees what the group wants out of the campaign and then uses whatever books he sees fit to build the campaign with the ideas the group gave him. After all, the DM is running the game. As for Responsibility, I don't know where that factors in to anything. I buy gaming books because I have the disposable income to do so, not to mention the fact I like addin new elements into the game. Even if I didn't buy any new books, I'd still be the DM just for the fact that I'm the only person that really enjoys running the RPG's. Other players may run our sessions of Hero Quest, Warhammer Quest, Doom, and the like, but I'm the primary DM for old-fashioned RPG's.

Our group is about as healthy as it gets. We don't get to play much anymore, but that's because I've moved over an hour away. Now our occasional game nights are less long term campaigns and more one shots. We're always trying something new, but we have our favorites we come back to. There's no burn-out, no bickering, and we're all still having a good time. It doesn't get any more healthy than that, IMO.

I didn't criticize Erik Mona at all, except perhaps to say that I suspect that the sample of readers is skewed. The SSS GW was not, as far as I know, entirely designed for folks who remember the original (leaving aside my opinion that people's recollections of what Gamma World was like and about are so severely skewed as to be non-fact). In fact, the terms of the license made that flat out impossible. But as far as I know, nobody's written long laments about WotC forcing one of their own properties to divert from its origin.

When you put out a PA game that is titled the same as a line that has the long line of material and as large of a fanbase as GW, you bet your butt that that fanbase is automatically the primary group of people that are going to buy the book. The audience comes with a certain idea of how they would like the setting and rules to be. If S&SS wanted to put out a PA game, they simply should have and they wouldn't have had to worry about all the flak they got from GW fans. They still would have gotten flak for putting out a low-quality ruleset, however. If someone put out a game called "Willow" and then filled it with Technology and tin men, they would have failed also. Even if the rules were top notch, they still missed the mark as far as the target fanbase is concerned.

Kane

 

[Kae'Yoss]

i routinely lend out my d02 books. ones i've never even opened.

I'd say that you're too good for this world, but you are an advocat of an older version of the game, so I have to hate you

 

[Erik Mona]

Which of the other games were based on an old TSR offering that would be remembered by the aging segment you serve, Erik?

Spelljammer, of course. Possibly Dark*Matter. But that's just in terms of brands. We also published a wide variety of genres with strong appeal, including WW2, 70s car racing movies, mecha, etc. I think _part_ of Omega World's popularity has to do with the fact that it was tied to an existing property, but if that had been the case, why wasn't SSS's Gamma World likewise popular? They certainly had the space to do whatever they wanted, but what they ended up doing did not appeal to the pre-existing Gamma World fanbase, nor did it appeal much to anyone else.

But hey, White Wolf is in good company in this regard, because the Alternity version of Gamma World likewise missed the mark completely.

Screwing up Gamma World is a time-honored RPG industry tradition.

It's probably also worth noting that Omega World was not simply popular with our "aging" audience, but also with a lot of newer gamers since Jonathan Tweet correctly identified what made the original Gamma World fun, and focused almost exclusively on that.

For my money, that's why Omega World is popular, and why the WW Gamma World ain't.

--Erik Mona

 

[Kanegrundar]

There was one other early D20 book (it was dual-statted actually) for Usagi Yojimbo. It was a monster book with D&D conversions in the back. That book, other than being of a really small size was just horrible. The selection of monsters were terrible, the stats didn't seem right (I sold off the book a long time ago, so I might be off the mark a bit here), and the entire book felt really cheap.

Kane

 

[eyebeams]

Our group is about as healthy as it gets. We don't get to play much anymore, but that's because I've moved over an hour away. Now our occasional game nights are less long term campaigns and more one shots. We're always trying something new, but we have our favorites we come back to. There's no burn-out, no bickering, and we're all still having a good time. It doesn't get any more healthy than that, IMO.

Everyone is ideal in anecdote, aren't they?

When you put out a PA game that is titled the same as a line that has the long line of material and as large of a fanbase as GW, you bet your butt that that fanbase is automatically the primary group of people that are going to buy the book.

Uh, no, actually. It's not in a designer's interest to cater exclusively to existing fans of a prior edition, because:

1) They're a small and almost always shrinking group.

2) They'll buy it anyway. Complain as they might, they'll buy it anyway.

A purely faithful treatment will just snag existing fans, who would buy the book out of brand allegiance/collectibility anyway, and as a form of fandom are likely to complain in any event. So basically, by being faithful you can only lose consumers who aren't part of prior fandom.

This is why fans need to be smarter about buying things. If you buy something regardless of how you feel about it, all the commentary in the world will not change the fact that the company has earned some money. The fact that your favoured form of recreation with the book is negative commentary is secondary to the fact that you actually *bought* it. A sale is a sale, whether it's to use in a game, look at the pictures or even out one of your table legs.

The audience comes with a certain idea of how they would like the setting and rules to be. If S&SS wanted to put out a PA game, they simply should have and they wouldn't have had to worry about all the flak they got from GW fans. They still would have gotten flak for putting out a low-quality ruleset, however. If someone put out a game called "Willow" and then filled it with Technology and tin men, they would have failed also. Even if the rules were top notch, they still missed the mark as far as the target fanbase is concerned.

Again, you assume you're entitled to a particular treatment of this property. You aren't. But you *can* influence what comes out greatly by using your purchasing power. If you choose not to, whose fault is that?

 

[Erik Mona]

The SSS GW was not, as far as I know, entirely designed for folks who remember the original (leaving aside my opinion that people's recollections of what Gamma World was like and about are so severely skewed as to be non-fact). In fact, the terms of the license made that flat out impossible. But as far as I know, nobody's written long laments about WotC forcing one of their own properties to divert from its origin.

So why bother to do the book at all if it's not designed for folks who remember the original? Why not just call the game "Nano-Future" or something unassociated with the existing Gamma World and try to pave an original path?

The answer is easy. You can probably sell more books if you slap an existing brand on something. You don't have any obligation to make it like the earlier editions. You can just lean back in your chair, smile, and count the money from all the suckers who bought it because they thought it would be Gamma World, even if it isn't.

But wait. It doesn't quite work that way, and the White Wolf Gamma World has become something of an example of how _not_ to do a nostalgia-based product tied to an ancient license. Like I said, it's in good company in this regard, since Wizards of the Coast's own Gamma World Alternity product went over very poorly (perhaps even moreso) than the White Wolf version.

Look, I can't speak to the restrictions White Wolf was under when it made Gamma World. It's possible that Wizards of the Coast said something like "We'd really prefer it if you didn't have any funny animals in this version," but I find that difficult to believe.

You, on the other hand, seem to have inside knowledge of these dealings, but since you don't sign your posts, there's really no way for anyone to know how seriously they should be taking you.

--Erik Mona

 

[diaglo]

You, on the other hand, seem to have inside knowledge of these dealings, but since you don't sign your posts, there's really no way for anyone to know how seriously they should be taking you.

--Erik Mona

you know me. i never joke about D&D.

diaglo "signing his posts wherever possible" Ooi

 

[DMH]

But hey, White Wolf is in good company in this regard, because the Alternity version of Gamma World likewise missed the mark completely.

There is a huge difference between the two.

GW5 has a setting (which is just as boring as the Barony of the Horn) and all the rules (inc many mutations) in it. The missing stuff are the player species- plants and animals. Alternity really can't handle a goofy setting where taking building smashing rays to the chest and ignoring it is the norm (one of the main reasons I hold Alternity higher than d20).

GW6 does not have a setting, has less mutations than GW5, and is more of a toolbox approach. It can have a goofy feel and the genre write ups in the GMG support that. I think the main problem with it, other than the limited number of mutations, is the poor set up of the series. The PH should have had all the mutations, no creatures, no community rules, more in depth species rules, no habitat write ups, no nuking your home town, and it should have had a chapter on how to create a GW feel- both serious and goofy for both sets of fans.