Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6622066" data-attributes="member: 59082">[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], in response.Even if I agree with you that new DMs don't need to be hand-held and are more creative than are sometimes given credit for, not to mention something I don't think you mentioned, which is that a lot of the reason people play D&D instead of computer games is the creative aspect. So I'll give you all that. But what about those folks, such as myself, who don't have as much time as we did back in the day, that want easily insertible one-shot adventures and pieces to work with, to fit together? I love the creative element of creating a world, putting together a campaign, but struggle with the time to create site locations and adventures. Looking beyond adventures, I have never run a game in a published setting because I love world building. But I love buying setting books and find them of value to the game as a whole for new reasons beyond the actual use of them in a game. One, they are great resources for ideas and reading enjoyment for folks such as myself. Two, and this is the important one, a living setting brings the game alive in a way that, in my mind, was really lacking from 4E but we can see in Pathfinder, and both 2E and 3E. See, this is where I think WotC just doesn't "get it," and Paizo has gotten it. Not every product needs to meet a certain profit margin. Sometimes you need loss leaders to support the overall brand. A setting is a perfect example. Another good example is a print magazine. Sure, magazines are an old technology and I realize that the chances that we'll ever see an actual print version of Dragon are virtually zero, but in my mind when Dragon stopped being printed there was a hole in the D&D community that was never really filled. I do think the app is a nice move, although we'll see how things go with that.So all that said, here's a question for you: Why are you so dead-set on defending WotC's current minimalist approach? What harm is there in an increased output of product? Please don't say "edition treadmill" and "glut," as I'm not advocating for the excesses of the past. I'm talking about a fuller schedule of products, one that is diversified and serves more than only those two extremes of the spectrum that want to either play the story arcs, one after the other, or do everything themselves. Imagine a half a dozen other products a year, two or three modules, a splat or two, and a setting book or two? What harm is there in that?</blockquote>

Verification