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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philosopher" data-source="post: 5298359" data-attributes="member: 76803">I think it's worth it to draw a distinction between what is good for the game/hobby, and what is good for a company. The sheer diversity of campaign settings produced during the '90s was one of the best things that could have happened for the game, while at the same time being almost the worst thing that TSR did. Now, the two are not completely separate. If companies do poorly all around, then no one would stay in the business of producing gaming material, and the game/hobby would suffer. My point is that the two do not always overlap. There can sometimes be tension.TSR shot itself in the foot by producing so many settings. Given that WotC ended up saving the game from oblivion, in retrospect I'm glad that TSR did so.Another distinction worth making is between game mechanics and flavour. While the 2e core had decent rules (especially for the time - I know, some of you will disagree), the game mechanics of all the expansions were generally not well done. But the flavour from the 2e era (with the exception of removing the names "demon" and "devil") was absolutely fabulous.I can't speak for Shemeska, but I don't think that randomly tossing out ideas is necessarily a bad thing. As long as there is some reason to think that the products might do well (no company has unlimited resources, after all), it makes sense to try out a few new products in this way. The best market research comes from how products do on the market.</blockquote>

Verification