Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rob Kuntz" data-source="post: 7803860" data-attributes="member: 7015759">Well, considering the parts I bolded, above, we are at the cross roads of the commerce of ideas and the inclusive market--two generally opposed paths.&nbsp; Paraphrasing from my part on premade (general information/general use) material and DM-sculpted (specific/individual use) material in &quot;A New Ethos in Game Design:&nbsp; The Paradigm Shift Originated by D&amp;D, 1972-1977&quot;:&nbsp; Greyhawk became a casualty in TSR's massive shift to satisfy the general consumer.&nbsp; Not only of itself, but by massively detailed settings like FR and DL which could produce more profit than the DIY ethic allowed for, even with the plopping down of adventures onto its surface.&nbsp; It was the remaining DIY ethic attached to Greyhawk as a form which had been quickly becoming obsolete for the mass production model which depends on a median consumer approach.&nbsp; So it was never going to compete at that market/bottom line level, and so faded into what it has become, chopped and hacked at as the few, like Sargeant, attempted to revitalize it; and I even made a stab numerous times (1997 crafted a full re-marketing plan for it now online at my current blog that WotC never got back to Gary and myself on).So it is not only sorting out the confused parts, but it's also dealing with the DIY part as opposed to the median market approach.&nbsp; Even I recognized that as the ultimate problem and thus had to champion larger SB's (Priests of GH with specific spell sets) detailed regional settings (Wild Coast) as the only way forward to not only get beyond GH's adventure-centricity but to compete with FR and DL.&nbsp; I fear that that is the only way to go at this point and as you point out, the taffy pull occurs anew and there is probably no sorting it out without fall out from one or the other angles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rob Kuntz, post: 7803860, member: 7015759"] Well, considering the parts I bolded, above, we are at the cross roads of the commerce of ideas and the inclusive market--two generally opposed paths. Paraphrasing from my part on premade (general information/general use) material and DM-sculpted (specific/individual use) material in "A New Ethos in Game Design: The Paradigm Shift Originated by D&D, 1972-1977": Greyhawk became a casualty in TSR's massive shift to satisfy the general consumer. Not only of itself, but by massively detailed settings like FR and DL which could produce more profit than the DIY ethic allowed for, even with the plopping down of adventures onto its surface. It was the remaining DIY ethic attached to Greyhawk as a form which had been quickly becoming obsolete for the mass production model which depends on a median consumer approach. So it was never going to compete at that market/bottom line level, and so faded into what it has become, chopped and hacked at as the few, like Sargeant, attempted to revitalize it; and I even made a stab numerous times (1997 crafted a full re-marketing plan for it now online at my current blog that WotC never got back to Gary and myself on). So it is not only sorting out the confused parts, but it's also dealing with the DIY part as opposed to the median market approach. Even I recognized that as the ultimate problem and thus had to champion larger SB's (Priests of GH with specific spell sets) detailed regional settings (Wild Coast) as the only way forward to not only get beyond GH's adventure-centricity but to compete with FR and DL. I fear that that is the only way to go at this point and as you point out, the taffy pull occurs anew and there is probably no sorting it out without fall out from one or the other angles. [/QUOTE]

Verification